User talk:Jsw663

• To all pro-Falun Gong vandals: How does vandalizing Wikipedia pages promote your cause? Only someone lacking in maturity would go about cussing. Or is it because you have nothing worthwhile to say about Falun Gong? And why hide behind an anon. IP address? Have the guts to take responsibility for your own comments! Otherwise, we can see who's really pathetic.
• Note: The above paragraph does not indicate whether I am pro- or anti-Falun Gong. It is merely a response to those who vandalize my page; in this case it happens to be a pro-FG one. Jsw663 10:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Jsw663, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  — Instantnood 01:59, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

HKWNB, HKCOTW, Current events

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to some Hong Kong-related articles. You might be interested to take a look at HK wikipedians' notice board, HK Collaboration of the Week and Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. Happy editing! — Instantnood 01:59, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Party

Resolved

Hi. I added my "centre-right" political spectrum statement back into the Liberal Party article. Calling the CCP and Liberal Party both "conservative" is comparing apples and oranges. They are both conservative parties, but the ideology of the LP and the CCP are still quite different, although the CCP has been slowly transitioning to a new ideology since the economic reforms had started. The LP's ideology is very consistant with the "centre-right" political spectrum. Additionally, another person already called this party "liberal-conservative" which is virtually the same thing as calling it a "centre-right" party as all "liberal-conservative" parties are classified as "centre-right" or "right". Finally, the left/right political spectrum is very much applicable to Hong Kong. As I'm sure you already know, under "one country, two systems" anyone can form a political party. Parties such as the Civic Party can be classified as "centre-left" and The Frontier can be classified even further left. As long as there are political freedoms, you will see parties on both the left and right spectrums and therefore it's quite applicable to Hong Kong. --Candid1982 13:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Re: [1] [2] - Thanks so much. :-) — Instantnood 21:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Resolved

TheFarix decided jumped into an argument that isn't his and is currently abusing me. I really need your help. Thanks. -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

(Replied. Taken appropriate steps). Jsw663 04:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Honda S2000 Arbitration

Resolved

I've followed your advice and requested arbitration. If you find it appropriate, please add a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Honda S2000. Thanks. — AKADriver ☎ 14:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

North Korea's System of Government?

Resolved

We're currently trying to reach a consensus on what to put for North Korea's system of government in the North Korea article's infobox. The discussion is going on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Korea#System_of_Government Please give us your input! crazyeddie 06:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong related

Resolved

I'm terribly dissapointed that without any specific context you had come seemingly out of nowhere to criticize my recent comment on the Falun Gong talk pages. Had you read any of my comments previous you would understand my frustration with this Falun Gong "mediation". I am sorry if my hint of sarcasm did not reach the point of emphasis where everyone would be able to comprehend it, but essentially I made that last comment in an attempt to prove a point. I hope that once you realize the context of my comments you will withdraw your personal attacks, and (well, you being the first one on Wikipedia to ever attack the credibility of my "self-proclaimed" profession) your immediate doubts about what I do for a living.

Colipon+(T) 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, about archiving my talk page, you will notice that many other Wikipedians do the same.

Replied. Comments withdrawn in light of sarcasm. Jsw663 06:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We are actually on common grounds here in that we agree mediation is impossible. That was the point I was trying to prove throughout the past week or so. I am frankly tired of the constant western slant that Wikipedia voices, and the Western media's persistence on attempting to raise Falun Gong's status while ignoring its cultlike characteristics. Unfortunately I am the minority here in the West, and on disputed Wikipedia subjects like Falun Gong, the minority often has very little voice. Therefore I resorted to the last solution of sarcasm. Colipon+(T) 06:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

Informal mediator WikieZach| talk is preparing to move the Falun Gong mediation case to the Wikipedia:Arbcom. I have been asked to alert concerned (to the best of my knowledge) editors about this matter. Thank you. --Fire Star 火星 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Resolved

I welcome your arguments and recommendations at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-06 Victim photo from 1981.--Patchouli 21:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

British Airways EL Section

Resolved

I thank you for your assistance and support in the manner, and I do agree with you. That being said the user has restored his link once again and I have added another warning to his talk page in addition to removing the link. NcSchu 19:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe this person, shortly after the 1 day ban was released s/he decided to post the link in the talk page instead. NcSchu 12:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I posted there because I a new user and was not aware that anyone other BA itself may have been removing my link. I was also not aware that anyone was leaving messages for me as I was not aware of Talk Pages. Once temporarily banned I found my talk page and the comments that were being left so I contacted the person who banned me, told him what I was going to do and asked him to unban me which I assume that he did. In my e-mail to the person who banned me I said the following: "I request that you unblock my IP address and I will 1) Take my current issue to the talk:British Airways page as was suggested by another user, and 2) Not post to the BA page until I have at least twenty other posting from my outsiders in my discussion forum in order to legitimize it. By the way the link on the page that provides for a discussion about BA, http://www.airlinequality.com/Forum/brit_awys.htm, appears only permit happy speak about BA. I submitted my issue to them and they have not posted it. I know there are many others in my situation that are not getting an appropriate response from BA. Issues like these reflect on the management of the airline and I believe are a legitimate source of information regarding the airlines. I am not trying to make any money or sell anything on the site British-Airways-Complaints.com. My only purpose is to provide a forum for people to share their issues and discuss what is and is not working in order to get them resolved." Now if the BA Talk page is not the proper page, what are my options? Thank you.

• Replied to 68.4.25.97. Jsw663 17:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000

Resolved

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --FloNight 10:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Medcab

Resolved

Yeah, I abandoned the case long ago...-- Selmo ^(talk) 23:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I responded on my page. --evrik 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mediation cases / status box

I shall do so now. Thanks for advising me about this! -- Where 14:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Distinguishing China / mainland China / PRC

Resolved

I am sure you know about the differences among them very well. Hong Kong and Macao have been part of the People's Republic of China since 1997 and 1999 respectively, and therefore it is always wrong to exclude them in any encyclopædic article when we're referring to People's Republic of China. Although they're constitutionally stated to be " inalienable part[s] of the People's Republic of China ", they remain separate economies, legal jurisdictions, custom territories, and so on and so forth. Since mainland China is an established term to refer to the PRC with Hong Kong and Macao excluded (it's used in laws and in many official purposes), the term is naturally the best option to describe the rest of the PRC in situations that Hong Kong and Macao are excluded. Wikipedia is written for everybody to read, that we cannot have any (pre-)assumptions that they already know about how political setup and the actual reality were like regarding the PRC, and Hong Kong and Macao. I did request for comment, and I did brought the matter to attention of sysop, but sadly obviously nobody would dare to get involved since nobody likes to get into troubles. What would you suggest we should do? — Instantnood 20:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied Jsw663 20:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been polls, and frankly, from my experience on Wikipedia polls are not helpful unless all participants actually are familiar with the subject matter. For example, many Washington, D.C. and District of Columbia categories were recently merged, since few people actually know the city of Washington did not in the pass cover the entire district. People just argue they're the same and coterminous. The term mainland China is in fact used formally, officially and frequently by the Hong Kong Government, in the LegCo, and by the courts too. It is also used in formal and official purposes by the PRC government itself (in English). Footnote may perhaps be an option, but then by having a like to the mainland China article readers can promptly tell what the term mainland China means in one click. Encyclopædic materials have to be, and must be accurate, clear, non-confusing and easy to read. — Instantnood 21:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jsw663&action=edit&section=17

Footnotes may work for some entries, but in quite a few entries in which China, People's Republic of China and mainland China have to be used to convey the different subjects under different contexts, I'm afraid footnotes could be confusing. — Instantnood 21:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The People's Republic of China as an emerging superpower article, for instance. In that article we are referring to the economy, the demographics, etc., of mainland China, the diplomatic relations, the military, of the People's Republic of China, and the history and the culture of China. How should, in your opinion, the footnotes be placed if we're to use footnotes? — Instantnood 21:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied on Instantnood's user page (Example: [3]). Note to self: [4] : archived discussions on whether term 'mainland China' is appropriate. Discussion leans towards objecting changing PRC and China references be changed to mainland China. I personally object as well. Jsw663 15:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Instantnood is under probation from ArbCom for his constant edit-warring. I'm assuming since you suggested that he take up dispute resolution that you didn't already know that. SchmuckyTheCat 21:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that user:SchmuckyTheCat is under ArbCom probation as well, and the most recent case that I'm involved was opened when I was blocked from submitting a statement. — Instantnood 21:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but only as a side effect of dealing with you, and only on certain topics where I'm likely to run into you. And, mine has never been extended and expires. You've run out your rope and have dozens of specific bans at this point. SchmuckyTheCat 21:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Read carefully what those bans are about. The Hepatitis B in China article is an example on how bans were imposed. — Instantnood 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My page is NOT A PAGE FOR MUDSLINGING! Please maintain civility. I know both of your histories well, so please stop arguing here. I don't want to ban you both from my talk page, PLEASE!!!! Jsw663 21:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But I pressed the submit button before seeing your complaining - we were editing this page roughly at the same time. — Instantnood 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[5] It won't matter what 'friendly' resolution you use to try and get something positive out of him. He'll ignore concensus, create an article/category/template fork or whatever it is so that his way gets presented. SchmuckyTheCat 21:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

When did I ever ignore consensus and create a fork? Don't just say something with no evidence. — Instantnood 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE, YOU TWO - I know you have both had a colorful history in dealing with each other but this is NOT the page for you to launch personal attacks. Please maintain civility, thanks. Jsw663 21:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood and "Mainland China"

Resolved

I'm not at all sure how best to handle this issue. The most obvious courses of action are discussing it privately with IN, or raising it at AN/I. Past experiences suggest that the first of these is likely to lead to no change whatsoever (but lots of time spent with IN raising more and more minor counter-objections, while ignoring the substantiative issue, much less any recognition of consensus. The second is likely to lead, sooner or later, to a site-wide ban (temporary or otherwise) under his probation, and/or a general "exhausted the community's patience" determination. Both of these seem far from ideal, from my point of view. I'd personally settle for something that kept him out of the stub hierarchy for the time being, by his agreement or otherwise. Alai 14:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply

I replied on my talk page to your question(s). --Bjornar 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

About Falun Gong

I found the following input on the Falun Gong discussion page. You said:

I realize that this place is NOT to discuss the merits or evils of FLG but just a quick reply to 'danielprice' here - Yes, I've visited the website, as well as read the articles. As far as I can see they haven't openly disproven the incident with counter-evidence, but merely raised a few question marks with the details by playing to emotion and sympathy. Unfortunately, this does not convince me - I tend not to believe something unless it can be proven, or at least with facts which sufficiently obviously suggest to infer, in all likelihood, one conclusion. By saying this, I'm not saying I completely believe what the CCP says, but rather, that I read what both the CCP + FLG (or other pro-human rights groups such as Amnesty or Reporters w/o Borders) with a grain of salt. Please don't ask me to take sides on this controversial matter because as long as I'm on Wiki I'll try not to do so (although, of course, I do hold some steadfast opinions on FLG, e.g. that it is a cult, not a religion, though I'm not to judge whether it is evil or not). Anyway I'll end my post here. Jsw663 18:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My response:

Please take into consideration the following. A Falun Dafa practitioner will not beat or kill anybody; even he is a policeman or an army soldier or general. Now consider that in 7 years from 0 it grew the number of people practicing to more then 70 million. Then in 1999 the CCP actually said that in order for the party to survive it needs to eradicate Falun Gong. Now can you see their point? I can see it and I can not approve it. As far as I’m concerned, if I have to choose between good or bad, I will always go for the good. Don’t know about you, but I think that anyone or anything that is making you behave more Truthful, with more Compassion and more Tolerance, is a good thing. I think that Falun Dafa is good.

Please let me know if there is anything that you think that you would need to take “with a grain of salt” of what I just said above, because I would really like to be very explicit.

PS: feel free to delete it from here if you think that this is unapropriate. And also thank you for your time and understanding. --HappyInGeneral 13:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would I delete the above? You are making a judgement call here, or POV. You believe that FLG practitioners will not beat or kill anybody even if they are policemen or military personnel; I believe we are all capable of doing it. That statement is not backed up by facts or reputable sources of any kind. I cannot see how numbers on its own matters; in fact one CCP report stated there were over 100m FLGers. Although the CCP may feel the FLG threatens its power, I try not judge whether FLG or the CCP is good/bad. Not everything that comes from the CCP is necessarily untrue. Look at the facts reported by both sides, report what both sides say, and let history make the judgement. I'm not going to say FLG is good nor will I say it is bad; however, like all cults, I will say that it has the potential to be dangerous - nothing on Earth in reality is pure good or evil (the message most Hollywood movies give). That's what I mean by taking everything with a grain of salt. You are free to hold your POV but I'll strive not to be drawn into a FLG debate - Wikipedia is not the place for it. Jsw663 18:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my message. I'll try to answer point by point.

1. "You are making a judgment call here, or POV. "

I would prefer to call it a sound deduction on a few information that are accepted by both of us as being true. My target here is only your understanding, that might affect your future work on Falun Gong pages.

2. "You believe that FLG practitioners will not beat or kill anybody even if they are policemen or military personnel; I believe we are all capable of doing it."

Actually I do believe that a person who believes in the teachings of Falun Dafa when put in front of a situation like unjust stealing, beating and even more in case of killing (on which there is an explicit reminder on Zhuan Falun, which explains the seriousness of this act), would not do these things, even if ordered. I did not say that Falun Gong practitioners are not capable of doing these, I only meant to say that the practitioners are very much aware of the heavy costs of these acts.

3. "That statement is not backed up by facts or reputable sources of any kind. I cannot see how numbers on its own matters; in fact one CCP report stated there were over 100m FLGers. "

100m = 100 million? I think too that there was an official report from the CCP stating that there are more practitioners then party members, and that in just 7 years, then think of it's potential for evolution and the capability of CCP to order people to do things that are immoral. And when it comes to a pragmatic mind, numbers do matter very much (I think that an atheist has only a pragmatic mind). However I also see that from a spiritual point of view, quality maters a lot more than numbers. Still I'm not sure if I understood exactly what you meant.

4. "Although the CCP may feel the FLG threatens its power, I try not judge whether FLG or the CCP is good/bad. Not everything that comes from the CCP is necessarily untrue. Look at the facts reported by both sides, report what both sides say, and let history make the judgment. I'm not going to say FLG is good nor will I say it is bad; however, like all cults, I will say that it has the potential to be dangerous - nothing on Earth in reality is pure good or evil (the message most Hollywood movies give)."

4.1 Trying not to judge. I think you may try not too judge, but consider this, as naturally as you decide what food do you like, in the same way you are judging which side is good and which side is bad. I think potentially there is a fear under CCP rule to judge its legitimacy. This fear, I think that somewhat normal considering that if you say anything against it, which would include even “Falun Dafa is good” since this is something contrary to what it said, you can loose a lot potentially even your live in a torturous way.

4.2 About the potential for Falun Dafa to turn dangerous. People who joined Falun Dafa learned to value moral character, virtue. Do you thing that it would be easy to anybody to ask them to do harm? Practitioners will always try to look inside and evaluate everything with the basic principals of the universe: Truthfulness - Compassion - Forbearance (and yes they should be always simultaneous, you can not take neither out of the picture) and also I do believe that these principals allow for harmony between all forms of life to exist.

5. "That's what I mean by taking everything with a grain of salt. "

Actually exactly because you said that you take things with a grain of salt, I was thinking that you perhaps have an open mind, which is why I took from my time to write all this.

6. "You are free to hold your POV but I'll strive not to be drawn into a FLG debate."

If you feel that this is becoming a "debate" or something that you do not want to continue here, it's fine, as I told you, please fell free anytime to delete my suggestions and I promise that will not revert them or continue with new ones here.

Thank you for your time and understanding. --HappyInGeneral 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, HiG. My reply:

1. Inference and deduction may be 'sound' in most cases, but it can lead to the most radical interpretations. Anyone who has studied a bit of law or religion or philosophy-related subjects should be aware of this.

2. If FLGers only practised meditation and did not engage in any anti-government (I mean all governments) activities, then nothing is wrong. But as you know, there are always practitioners who radicalize any set of beliefs. That is what is dangerous and I think what the CCP is truly worried about. If Li Hongzhi wanted FLG to be a peace-desiring and meditation-only group, he should do more to condemn the more radical FLGers directly for their anti-FLG (if violence is indeed anti-FLG) actions.

3. I was merely trying to make the point that the size of a group who shares the same (set of) belief(s), no matter how large in number, may not always be correct.

4.1. The CCP fearing the undermining of its rule may only be one factor. I try not to let one factor completely dominate, that's all. As for trying, I say that because I don't think we can always be truly neutral and objective (as you pointed out with the food example) - but that doesn't mean we can't strive for that.

4.2. Like I said above, every set of beliefs has the potential to be radicalized. This is why I said it has the potential to be dangerous. Any peace-oriented set of beliefs, therefore, must seek to clamp down on their radical factions to ensure that what they preach can be matched by the actions of its practitioners.

5, 6. + end. I allow more leeway on my userpage simply because it isn't part of 'mainstream' Wikipedia, so a little discussion of FLG wouldn't hurt too much. However, if it gets heated or into too much detail I'll obviously stop it. Jsw663 15:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for truly reading and taking into consideration the issues listed above. There is one point on which I’m not clear about. What is it that you consider that was radical (in the sense of inappropriate I guess) done by the Falun Gong practitioners? Please when answering, try to take into consideration and detail a bit the environment in which those acts were done. I believe that if you try to do that you will see that they actually acted 1. to protect the truth about Falun Dafa 2. they took every mean possible to do it in respect to the school principles, Zhen-Shan-Ren. Thank you again. --HappyInGeneral 17:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Jsw663, I implore you to read the UN report http://www.flghrwg.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1027&Itemid=0, and the Kilgour-Matas report http://www.david-kilgour.com/2006/Kilgour-Matas-organ-harvesting-rpt-July6-eng.pdf, and visit this page http://www.faluninfo.net/torturemethods2/. The first two are definitely not Falun Gong publications. I do not know about the last, but it is extremely unlikely that those stories are made up - plus there are many photos.

---

Those are all Falun Gong propaganda. Just do a WHOIS on the site and google the site owner's name.

Kilgour's FLG report has since been discredited. Please check out the rebuttal from long time Chinese activist Harry Wu. Wu investigated FLG's allegation inside China and found it not credible, echoing US State department's investigation:

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006amp;m=April&x=20060416141157uhyggep0.5443231&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html

http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20060806_1.htm

http://www.cicus.org/news/newsdetail.php?id=6492

http://crc.gov.my/clinicalTrial/documents/Proposal/TCM_Stroke%20TrialProtocol%20synopsis.pdf (page 3)

As you can see, the hospital FLG fingered is actually partly owned by a Malaysian healthcare company, and is subject to oversight beyond Chinese authority. Malay officials have visited the alleged site in previous year; the place has been open to public for years.

bobby fletcher 17:21, 20 December 2006 (PST)

---

As I see it, Falun Gong is basically a set of free teachings and meditation exercises. Many of the teachings cannot be understood by people who do not cultivate in Falun Dafa. None of the teachings are harmful in any way. No one has been or will be harmed by the teachings of Falun Gong. All the teachings are sitting there on the internet; whether one reads them or believes them is up to the individual. Being a practitioner is a matter of the heart. The core of the teachings in about improving xinxing and becoming a very good person in accordance with Zhen-Shan-Ren. One can go to an exercise site or not, study the books with other practitioners or not, get involved in activities to expose the CCP and the persecution or not. There are no lists or people giving orders. There is also no one making money from all this. For those reasons I do not understand why you consider Falun Gong a cult. I am assuming you are meaning the word cult in its pejorative sense - I mean by using the word you are saying that it is teaching people to do bad things or that it is in some way harmful to people. Is that what you mean by cult? In my experience, when I first started learning to when I now consider myself a practitioner, no one once asked me to do anything or asked me for anything. I went along to the study group and exercise site on-and-off for a while, and as I understood more I asked if I could do something to tell people about the persecution, and I did as much as I wanted and when I wanted. I think Falun Dafa is very wonderful. I am not asking you to think the same as me or think Falun Dafa is really great. I am asking you to read the above materials in order that you have no illusions about what the persecution is and how it started. You referred to some things practitioners have done to combat the persecution in mainland China. In China they are a severely vilified group of people. The CCP has tried to make everyone hate them. All they have said is based on lies. They are trying to turn that around, tell people that Falun Gong does not teach bad things, and that the CCP is doing some extremely evil things to the practitioners that they catch. They have broken the law in order to do so. It is up to you who you think is right or wrong in that case. You will not be able to make that judgement, however, if you do not understand the persecution. Just click that "torture methods" link, and spend about 5 minutes reading about what they have been doing. Burning, electrocuting, beating severely, injecting nerve-damaging drugs - all that is true. That is actually happening. Not to mention the live organ harvesting. I think that if you can just read the UN report, the Kilgour-Matas report, and take a look at that site, then you will understand what is going on here. If you do not read those things then you will not be able to assess this situation for yourself or make an objective judgement, as I believe you truly want to. We can talk more if you like.--Asdfg12345 12:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think my replies on the FLG talk page + to HiG just above this pretty much sums up my position. Please read it since it serves as a perfectly good reply to your post.

To Asdfg12345, my understanding is that when two people talk it's rude and inconsiderate to the other party to insist, since everybody should have it’s own time to think and reflect about things. Even though I do not disagree even a bit with what you said. Because in my research I also found that it is all true. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --HappyInGeneral 17:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Medcab Cases page

Resolved

Hey! It might interest you to know that any changes you make to the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases page will not be preserved, as the bot completely replaces the information that is there each time it updates. Instead, you'll want to alter the status template on the case page itself, changing "Open" to "Closed" and whatever else. Provided you change the status, the case will automatically be removed, saving you the time of doing it yourself! Happy wiki-ing. --Keitei (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong page intro

Jsw663, I agree with you that the current intro on the Falun Gong page can be shorter but you appear to be inconsistent. For example, you do not seem to be bothered by the length of the following sentence which is connected to the statement you deleted repeatedly. “Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).” I am sure you can see that parts of this sentence (those in parentheses) are not needed.

Another example, the 3rd paragraph of the intro can be shortened by deleting the italic passage. 3rd paragraph: “The exact number of Falun Gong practitioners is not known. A figure of 70 million practitioners was quoted in a New York Times article published April 27, 1999. According to the article, this figure was the estimate of PRC government.[4] However according to a statement posted on November 1, 1999 the membership estimated by Beijing was 2.1 million.[5] A main Falun Gong website states a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide, including 70 million in mainland China.[2]

You might not be aware that the statement you deleted repeatedly has been the source of lengthy debate and revert wars for a few months. Pro-FG editors can not stand it because it reveals the group’s well concealed core teachings. I am sure they all love you for your insistence of excluding that statement.

I don’t think you are a FG practitioner and you might not be a supporter of the FG, but your insistence of excluding that statement (perhaps the most important part of the intro) is troubling. Thanks for listening. --Samuel Luo 19:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was never aware that I persistently reverted the sentence you mentioned in the first paragraph. I thought I was reverting some people's desire to include a direct quote by Li himself. As for the statistic, I am not a FLG expert and only vaguely recalled a few pieces of information, so do override my suggestion if you like once you've told me about it. Thanks. Jsw663 15:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just one thought. If you add the term religion in the intro, shouldn't we add a lot more disambiguation words in order to show a clear picture about the practice? It's not like other religions, where there are monks, fees, ceremonies, etc... it's quite different. Also what is wrong with the word spiritual? After all the Teachings only point out the importance of Fa-Study, xinxing and practice. --HappyInGeneral 06:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought I argued AGAINST using the term religion, and FOR using the term spiritual? Jsw663 15:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

True, I was mainly trying to present some arguments to Samuel. Hope that's alright with you. --HappyInGeneral 19:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Honda S2000 ArbCom case

Resolved

Any chance of getting other arbitrators to contribute? This case really ought to be sorted out asap, and it's been almost a month since it opened, AND no other arbitrators have even left a comment on the page. I hope you can help move this case forward to a conclusion asap, thanks!! Jsw663 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please contact the other arbitrators. Fred Bauder 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

North Korea

Hey I'm glad you agree with me. While I believe North Korea has some serious issues, particularly highly centralized govenremnt and nuclear weapon programme, the western bias of the intro was unbelievable!! The intro focused entirely on corrupt regime!!!! This is an encyclopedia supposed to take a balanced view of things. I had to remove the sentence North Korea has the strangest regime in the world? How was this ever allowed to be written and remain? Wikipedia needs to be treated as a serious source not look like a manifesto of Mr Bush!!! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000

Resolved

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

SpinyNorman is required to edit using only one account. SpinyNorman may be banned from any article he disrupts. SpinyNorman is placed on personal attack parole. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time if he makes personal attacks. SpinyNorman is placed on revert parole. He is limited to 1 revert per week on any article, excluding obvious vandalism. Should SpinyNorman continue to disrupt Wikipedia he may be banned for an appropriate period, up to a year. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 14:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

DPRK working group

Hi Jsw663,

Thanks for joining WikiProject Korea! We've been gathering Wikipedians with an interest in North Korea at the DPRK working group. Since you fit the bill (and then some!), please consider joining us. Best wishes, -- Visviva 04:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

comment re Falun Gong and CCP

You said: "Yes there have been some health benefits from Falun Gong, and if Falun Gong stayed strictly OUT of politics, and did not comment at all on the CCP as a political institution, then there would be no need to oppress it, like qigong, or other martial arts-cum-spiritual exercises. But that's simply not the case, is it?"

And I must conclude that you have not read any independent reporting about the persecution and the history of Falun Gong, or you have forgotten what you read. It was only after the persecution started that there was any kind of commentary on the CCP as a political institution. Everyone knows that. Now that practitioners are being killed, raped, tortured, beaten, having their organs extracted while they are alive and so on - for doing nothing but qigong exercises - there is a lot of commentary on the CCP as a political institution. I just wish you would take a calm look at the evidence and the reports on the persecution. Just look at the evidence and read some third party reports. --Asdfg12345 11:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And once again I have to reply that I have already read such reports, and have given it due consideration, although noting the fact that these independent reports draw conclusions based on unreliable sources of evidence which have yet to be proven. Several other anti-FLG people have also provided instances when FLG was anti-CCP BEFORE it ever raised the suspicion of the CCP - and even if I were to concede the point, the very fact that the Falun Gong was completely unrestrained in devoting all its energy and money into countering the CCP shows its intentions, initial or later, were hardly bona fide - they were to rival, and now seeks to bring down by undermining the government. Not exactly a 'peaceful' belief consisting of just 'spiritual exercises', right? Jsw663 10:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute - Falun Gong practitioners doing all they can to stop the murder of innocents? what would you do if your mother was taken away by the police and raped and beaten? I think you would have something to say about that. You might give out fliers, or hold banners, maybe make some phone calls, or even appeal to the government! What do you consider "proof" of rape, torture and murder? Do you want to see the dead bodies yourself, or watch the police doing these cruel things in person? Would only that count? There is a great deal of photographic evidence, a large number of family testimonies, testimonies of practitioners, you know, there are even recorded voice conversations - and they have been verified to have taken place - where doctors will say "yes, the organs are from live Falun Gong practitioners" - what do you suppose? The organs are available in a week! what do you think? Organs don't fall from the sky. They have to come out of people's bodies. They need a supply of fresh bodies. The doctors themselves said they are coming from Falun Gong. Did you think about this? Do you think there is another magic source, and that the doctors said that it was Falun Gong as a bit of a joke? That sounds really ridiculous, right? Can you come up with a more convincing scenario? Can you pause and think about what you are supporting? Li Hongzhi has said a million times that we are not interested in politics. Talk to any Falun Gong practitioner and they will say they don't care about politics. We want these evil deeds to stop, and we want them to stop as soon as possible. We will use non-violent means to tell as many people as possible until they stop. When they stop we will stop. I asked you some questions just earlier and I would like you to respond to them directly. About the source of organs and why the doctors would say they are from Falun Gong.--Asdfg12345 23:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Asdfg, your actions speak louder than your words. Your edits on the Falun Gong page, by supporting Omido's version, shows that you support a totally biased version and have no interest in seeing genuine NPOV. It has undone all the hard work put in by both sides to reach a consensus. Such un-wiki actions is worrying, because for a while there was a remote possibility that you were willing to adhere to WP:Civility. Accusing others who insist that you adhere to Wikipedia policy as supporters of the opposition is also distinctly unhelpful. And finally to address your post, show me some reliable non-pro-FG proof of the above, AND be willing to accept the CCP's rebuttal to such an allegation, THEN we can engage in the "frank discussion" you claim to be promoting. After all, if Falun Gong practitioners were 'defenders' of the 'truth', then what have they got to hide by letting the other side air their views? Why take such drastic steps to hide any criticism of FG? Is there something unworthy that must be hidden? If Falun Gong were really that good, why hasn't the entire world converted to Falun Gong?

In the future, please adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines when editing. If you show yourself to be a trustworthy editor who abides by, at the very least, Wikipedia rules, "frank discussion" can be engaged in and maybe a satisfactory compromise veresion can be agreed on. But as long as you support one side's version only despite having agreed on compromise versions on the discussion page of the Falun Gong entry backed up by your support for a version by someone who has persistently engaged in edit-warring and violated the 3RR rule over and over again, a final version will never be reached. Thus arises the question: are you, Asdfg, interested in arriving at a compromise version between the two camps that was a result of a constructive debate that adhered to Wiki policies? If so, please be careful of your words and actions in the future. Insulting admins like Fire Star, for example, is not a good start. Jsw663 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: Discussion continued on FG talk page. My response to Asdfg's latest reply:

I am happy and pleased to see that you are willing to work on this article to make it of high quality and relatively neutral. However, we must first get over what you pass off as facts, such as a 'genocide' of FG practitioners. FG practitioners via your websites have made numerous allegations but almost every point has been met with an official Communist Party of China's rebuttal. If you question once again whether I'm merely some CCP mouthpiece, it would be wise to remember that the CCP actually denies they are even suppressing FG practitioners; I'm not denying that some degree of limitation / restriction of FG practice/practitioners is going on. This is not the same as genocide. However, it is being exaggerated and when more fabrications are used to support what were initially facts then one is inevitably left to question your intentions. Since the 'clampdown' of FG is tremendously controversial, it would be better for an encyclopedia, in keeping with its NPOV policy, to present both sides' views without pre-determining the information for the public. If you agree that Omido's behavior is worrying then perhaps you'd like to join in the mediation case I've initiated against him. I've deliberately NOT resorted to seeking blocks, bans or ArbCom decisions against him because I want constructive debate from both sides. However, if he persists in being unreasonable and you can show that the majority of FG practitioners are not so, maybe some of the negative perceptions of FG can be dispelled. Regarding the Fire Star insult point, it was questioning her (?) commitment to NPOV / neutrality. If the user was not deemed responsible then Fire Star wouldn't have been 'approved' as an administrator. Regarding Tomananda, he is only as biased towards the other end as you are biased towards FG. Note that I don't think we have someone who has represented the CCP (the 'official' anti-FG people) view in this discussion yet, so please don't judge me by my introduction of two Xinhua news sources in English that have addressed the issue of FG (although such sites cannot stay on the page with section blankers). In the end, as long as all sides of the FG debate are committed to working towards a GA or better status for this article, we'll have done our role as Wiki editors in improving Wiki as an encyclopedic source. But to maintain this commitment we first need to weed out those who seek to stop our commitment towards this goal! Jsw663 10:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong discussion

Haha. Contribute to Falun Gong discussion? No one ever believes what I say because everything I say is CCP propaganda. I am their dog. I tried numerous times on the main discussion on Falun Gong as well as on Li Hongzhi.

Are there any big outstanding issues? Colipon+(T) 19:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay wait are you neutral on the issue? Colipon+(T) 19:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case

Resolved

Hey, I've taken the mediation cabal case you filed (User:Omido's actions on Falun Gong related pages). Omido appears to be inactive since Dec 29 and I was wondering if you knew if he was coming back? If your unaware of his status, we'll just assume he'll be back so in the meantime can you provide a more detailed view of how you see Omido's views as being problematic on the case page? - Tutmosis 01:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to self - replied. Put case on hold due to Omido no longer engaging on edit wars on Wikipedia. Will activate once again if such actions resume. Jsw663 19:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Kilgour Matas report discussion

My ICQ number is: 100729595, if you want us to discuss I'm available here. Best regards, --HappyInGeneral 18:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My timezone is UTC/GMT +2 hours, can you tell me what is yours? --HappyInGeneral 12:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to self - contacted HiG once, on Fri 12 Jan 2007 16.40-17.10h. Have not discussed K/M report yet. Jsw663 19:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Another note to self - HiG discussion may not be possible when he thinks everyone who criticizes Falun Gong is necessarily a CCP member with a 'direct interest' in 'distorting the facts'. See [6]. Jsw663 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Jsw, I have had the same encounters with Falun Gong disciples. For example Jana Shearer of Australia (just google her name with "Dafa", you'll see). She has been slandering me with "Chinese spy" allegation, simply because I dissented and presented contrarian facts that discredited the Kilgour report (US embassy undercover investigation, Harry Wu's secret investigation, review by pathologist and congressional researchers.)

The same thing happened when I made my opinion known during a Chinatown FLG event, they said the CCP paid me to be there. Even David Kilgour himself made desparaging remark against me, "we know where your loyalties are".

Here's my blog: http://sujiatunfactorhoax.blogspot.com, my blog profile is open to public. If you wish to discuss your experience with me please email me.

bobby_fletcher 09:44, 4 Feburary 2007 (PST)

Thanks for your reply. If this is true, then it makes me wonder if Kilgour + Matas aren't FG practitioners themselves (i.e. using FG logic back on them)? Jsw663 12:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

JSW, sorry I'm not a huge wikipedia so pardon the delay. Kilgour Matas are not FLGer, they are Canadian conservatives using the "Sujiatun/Auschwitz" propaganda to further their anti-communist agenda. Here are some more reference on their FLG report (incidentally they were "reimbused" $50,000, check Appendix K of their report, containing a letter from some FLG political group in DC.)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/896908.html Bobby_fletcher 15:09, 26 August 2007 (PST)

Ongoing discussion at /introduction

Hey JSW. I seriously do not know how we are ever going to get that article done without an objection or denial by a FLG practitioner to everything we say, neutral or otherwise.

I think the root of the problem is that if you are an FLG practitioner, you have one set of solid and unwavering beliefs. But the people who criticise Falun Gong do not all belong to the same group. For example, the CPC, obviously, a FLG critic, but ignoring most of what they say as groundless thought-control propaganda (which is only partly true), you have all the Buddhist and Daoist organizations and experts that form a second group, who believe FLG is an outright skewed doctrine. Recently there seems to be a trend to classify the third, more moderate group, who simply want to share NPOV, also as part of the anti-FLG camp.

I do not know if this is a battle where NPOV can win.

What do you think?

Colipon+(T) 03:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Got your message, will consider your advise. --Yueyuen 02:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have also been frustrated lately with ASDFG's constant reverts and violations of wiki rules. I am wondering if we could just report him as a problem user and solve the problem from there. Colipon+(T) 21:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have decided to take the initiative of warning McConn at his talk page. I may issue a similar warning to ASDFG. Just so you know. Colipon+(T) 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to self - replies given on FG discussion page where relevant. Jsw663 20:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

HiG's real opinion, as posted by him on the Falun Gong/Comments page

• This section is a note to myself.
• Direct, unedited quote:

"I would note the quality of this page as unstable and BIASED therefore i would give it a 2 from a total of 5. As I see it, this page is written by only two groups, Chinese Communist Party members who have a direct interest (power, money, greed) to hide/obfuscate the details and the motives behind the Persecution of Falun Gong and Falun Gong practitioners who, since are not paid, I guess, would know the actual facts about Falun Gong since they are actually doing it daily. --HappyInGeneral 13:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)" See [7]. Jsw663 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest with you I don’t think these rules you are proposing will work. A five-day waiting period for any new edits, do you really think editors on both sides are going to follow that rule? Personally I don’t think I am going to follow this rule because I believe my edits meet Wikipedia standards, and I also don’t believe other editors (not the usual ones from both sides) will follow it. To me the biggest problem that has provoked many edit wars is the removal of legitimate material by pro-falun gong editors. How about a three-strike rule for anyone who unilaterally remove legitimate material? --Mr.He 00:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the Three-strikes system. I was the first person to openly express my support for it (check comments). There are a few logistical issues, but to tell you the truth i couldn't care less as long as something productive is done about this soon. I am not taking a nihilist attitude. I am simply very, very tired of this, but I feel obligated to stay as I do not want visitors to Wikipedia to see advertisements for Falun Gong. Also, a good read would be my warning to McConn and my satirical examination of ASDFG's accusations about Dr. Lu's study (now under the heading of "Study with opinions worth considering"), which none of the pro-FLG people have seemed to understand yet. McConn replied to it with blatant hypocrisy. That is what I find funny. We really don't even need to debate them. They have made a case against themselves with the things they say.

As for archiving the comments, I very much like the idea. I think we should archive even more of these comments of unfair accusations and assertions. Make sure it doesn't get deleted or vandalized.

Best wishes, -Colipon+(T) 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I respect what you are doing. However, the immediate problem right now is the deletion of legitimate material (those sections I listed on FG talk page). Can you get FGers to agree not to remove this material first? Thanks. --Mr.He 07:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to self which generates a lot of visibility, interesting. Ohh well, do as you please, and if you would ever like to talk with me, please feel free to do so. --HappyInGeneral 19:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually since you started this, here is an idea, maybe good, or maybe not so good. How about if you create a page where we can characterize everybody involved in the editing of the Falun Gong pages? This way we can keep track on everybody's behavior. What do you think? Would you like to start it? :) --HappyInGeneral 19:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

FLG sarcasm

Apart from my use of sarcasm and satire, you must realize that I am also trying to draw out hypocrisy, which has been more and more apparent. At this point I have lost faith in all negotiations with pro-FLG editors. If a reasonable deal could have been reached it probably should have happened within the past year. I will try my best, however, to not impede the progress of those who still have faith in this process. My apologies if I have done so. Colipon+(T) 21:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just checked the Falun Gong talk page. I must laugh. I can see what you are saying with people taking my sarcasm seriously. Similar thing happened at Talk:The Epoch Times. Colipon+(T) 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

FLG tolerance

Thanks for your messsage. I do try to keep a neutral stance in these matters, as you can probably see from my edits. Venting my frustration once in a while helsp me keep clam. =D Cheers. --Sumple (Talk) 05:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A new approach to the Falun Gong article

Hello Jsw663, please see the Falun Gong talk page and state your opinion about my proposal concerning a strict source policy. I think it's worth serious consideration. You know that the situation is tense, so we really need to find a common set of rules that is absolutely fair to all parties. In my opinion, your three-strike rule requires too much devotion to Wikipedia, and thus discriminates against a large group of editors. ---Olaf Stephanos 21:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to self - rejected Olaf's 15 rules for the following reasons:

• I. Disagree on what constitutes as self-evident truths. This is subject to interpretation, and should be discussed before editing.
• II. WP:Reliable_Sources already covers this ground. An encyclopedic article will also become a 'source war', with each party placing as many sources as they can find to support their case. This will not help in the compromise. What must be communicated in the FG wiki article are the points of contention, not volume of sources.
• III. Apart from the reason I gave for II., you will not find a smooth-reading, encyclopedic article if everything must be directly quoted. Context is required. It's funny you should say that it only takes two hours to legitimately remove a failed citation tag when you complain that my proposal requires constant attention of Wiki users. 5 days or 120 hours is there precisely so that constant attention is NOT required.
• IV. Disagreed because of disagreement with first three rules.
• V. Again, no. Editors like Asdfg have said that every non-pro-FG statement is lopsided. You will end up with another edit war with an article that has more tags than content.
• VI. This just prolongs the editing process. Such a dispute should have been made within content discussion beforehand. Objection should be on points of content, not just length.
• VII. Definitely not. Again, this should be discussed prior to editing the article. It will also cause edit wars as one disputes, in conjunction with your II, what constitutes as a 'valid' or 'reliable' source.
• VIII. This draws supposedly neutral and non-involved moderators into judging on content. This should not be the case. Moderators are not 'third-party-opinion enforcers' as Armedblowfish has previously pointed out. Thus this must be rejected entirely.
• IX. Although largely copied from mine, the responsibility to keep users under control should not be only within their own camp. This should be done anyway. The whole point of allowing people from all 3 camps to challenge is so that people won't have to be 'eternally vigilant' on Wiki - once again one of your supposed complaints against my rule.
• X. Completely disagree. The reason I said rules for now should stick only to FG articles is so that we can focus on editing one article at a time. If these rules are successful after implementation, then we can apply it to FG-related articles. Until then, we should focus on increments to make progress. We don't want to spend years of our lives on this matter, do we?
• XI. What constitutes an 'involved' editor? The reason I said any challenge can be allowed by any editor is in keeping with Wiki rules; limiting it to 'involved' editors would suggest that only a certain group of people are qualified to edit the FG Wiki article. This contravenes the spirit of Wikipedia in the first place.

PLUS additional objections to the modified ones -

   * VI - "Each party has to present their arguments on the talk page without delay" - I thought you were objecting to my rules because it required eternal vigilance of articles. This definitely does; even your 2-hour rule in the 11-rule thing in the previous section is dubious. My 5-day/120 hour rule by far does not.
   * VII - too much room for interpretation. Should be discussed beforehand anyway.
   * XI - No specific section-rules should be made on written content.

Just got my hands on these, perhaps you would like to see/read them as well: [8] [9] (from this one I learned a lot, on how was it possible to coerce people to torture other people.) --HappyInGeneral 15:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Collecting websites re FG

• This section is entirely a note for myself. Please do not edit this section.

Anti-FG, by CPC
[10] Xinhua's official anti-FG
[11] Why cult, [12] Gen, [13] Tanz rel, [14] CPC - US, [15] Satint, [16] CPC Estonia, [17] CPC Sweden, [18] CPC NZ (not useful), [19] CPC Switzerland, [20] CPC India - over 1700 killed by FG up till 15 Jul 03,

Anti-FG, non-CPC
[21] Non-CPC - cult, [22] Int Herald Tribune, Feb 3 2007, [23] Chinese non-CPC, including [24] international responses, [25] Singapore,

Balanced
[26] Both pro and anti sites, [27] General compilation, [28] Ultra-essentialist and not v accurate, [29] General, [30] BBC FG-sympathy, [31] Forum, not valid source,

Pro-FG
Already enough on this page + FG-related Wiki pages (must be 50+ but covers similar points) Note: Amnesty International and most human right groups support Falun Gong.

Six-party talks

Resolved

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Six-party talks. If you continue to do so, it may be considered vandalism. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. I don't know what you're playing at, "reverting" things and accusing others of vandalism. The Soviet Union and Empire of Japan are no longer appropriate names for modern-day current countries, and the "Southern Republic of Korea", "Socialist Republic of Korea", "People's Kingdom of China" and "United Colonies of America" have never been. Get a clue, please. LordAmeth 15:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Just out of curiosity, where are you studying in the UK? LordAmeth 15:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged my reversion was to the vandalized version instead of the right version, although I was striving to revert it to the non-vandalized one. After all, look at my other edits on the page. Jsw663 11:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from my own talk page:) I do apologize for the strong wording. You certainly seem like a serious, well-meaning editor, and thus I was confused that you would have committed such vandalism. Even though I make such mistakes myself, reverting to the wrong version, it just somehow didn't occur to me that that's what might have happened here - I truly do apologize for misjudging you. Keep up the good work, and don't mind me :) LordAmeth 11:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Luo has been taken to ArbCom

Hello, I have filed a request for evaluating the consistency of Samuel Luo's behaviour with the Wikipedia policies. Please have a look: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Samuel Luo. We have gone through his edits from the past year, and if the ArbCom accepts this case, we can provide them with a list of his worst violations in reverse chronological order. If you want, you can give your comments on the aforementioned page. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to self: Oppose action on grounds of insufficient dispute resolution. Possible unequal application of rules - comparing Samuel to Omido, and others justifying Omido's action (eg Andres18). Also regret action taken by Olaf as it will not help constructive editing in the long run. Jsw663 15:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:FG

I'm really interested in seeing how the RfAr goes. Are you watching? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 23:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It didn't go as well as you hoped... See this. Hope you're prepared. ;x - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I opposed for the main reason that an accepted case would open the floodgates. I don't necessarily oppose opening the floodgates; it just means a lot of work for all for a result that will probably have been reached anyway had people not opposed by 8 simple rules on editing behavior. Jsw663 14:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 05:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unregistered users and their insults

Hello, I saw the examples you provided on the ArbCom evidence page. I wonder what makes you think that these buffoons would be anything but some random agent provocateurs who're intentionally trying to make others look stupid. In my opinion, their behaviour deserves no attention whatsoever. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied [32] Jsw663 17:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is little reason why any sensible person would do something like that. However, playing the opponents' role is a ridiculous yet common tactic for creating a naive, fanatical or otherwise stupid impression. I'm not saying that this is the case; in fact, I think we're dealing with some random hooligans who just seek to disrupt, not to express their heartfelt sympathies to either side. That why I'd rather pay no attention at all. The best way to get rid of trolls is not to acknowledge them.

Thank you for pointing out the 1000 word limit. I will truncate my descriptions accordingly. The diff limit is 100, and I have less than 70, so I don't feel the urge to remove any actual pieces of evidence. ---Olaf Stephanos 18:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied [33] Jsw663 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I just think it's exorbitant to even insinuate that anyone of us would engage in such teeny-weenie trolling. I'm not going to argue about this. Discussion ended. ---Olaf Stephanos 18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Audrey Eu

Resolved

As far as I know, "house leader" is the term officially used by the Civic Party. Correct me if I'm wrong, thanks. --Deryck C. 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I've confused. On the Civic Party website they really simply use the word "leader" instead of "house leader". Thanks. --Deryck C. 05:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong evidence

You might want to review the block I recieved and why, and adjust your statement accordingly. As it is now, it contains several errors that severely misrepresent why I recieved a block and what the findings of checkuser were. The text on my talk page very clearly shows that I was blocked because of statements I made about conduct of those with CheckUser privledge and NOT because of their findings. In fact, the case was declined. Furthermore, my role in the Falun Gong articles was as informal mediator, a role that was accepted by both sides. CovenantD 10:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to self: Fully replied, including full apology on all relevant pages. However, still have not been forgiven, and also been accused as a POV-bigot. Awaiting further instructions. Jsw663 20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A response to your comment about the evidence page

Your point is valid, and I agree with you. I did not initiate this discussion on the evidence page, and I'd rather see it relocated on the talk page. It needs to be done by an arbitrator so that all comments can be moved simultaneously. Perhaps you saw the following statement in my reply to Tomananda: "maybe all replies that don't introduce new evidence in a clear and concise manner could be moved on the talk page?" ---Olaf Stephanos 13:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your care

It's nice being an admin of course =] --Deryck C. 05:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope I can help. But since I don't have much encounter with Eu or anything related to her I can't write much. And the resources online are quite limited. --Deryck C. 15:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right...

...about CD. It's really obvious that something is setting him off that's not Wiki. I went and sourced all the stuff he had a problem with, so it all should be a moot point now. I restrained myself before in this, holding back on what I wanted to type. Anyway, I think it should be all better now as the main stressor (as far as the article itself is concerned) is removed. I appreciate your support and guidance. I'm always working hard to Assume Good Faith (and I admit, sometimes it's difficult). Thanks! VigilancePrime 00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs The Alliance (Hong Kong) Ambrose Lau Hong Kong Institute of Education Ronny Tong Peter Kwong Central People's Government Sin Chung Kai Ding Zilin Xie Wanjun Functional constituency Open University of Hong Kong Kat O Hong Kong Club Building 7.1 People Pile Albert Chan Justice Union United Democrats of Hong Kong Economic history of Hong Kong Tsuen Wan Government Secondary School

Cleanup Elections in North Korea Chondogyo Nanman Merge World community China Daily Hong Kong Edition Jordan, Hong Kong Add Sources Wah Fu Hong Kong English West Point, Hong Kong Wikify HORIZONS Education in North Korea Podiatrist Expand Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong Religious cosmology Flea

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 07:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence length, Falun Gong arbitration

I will abridge my commentaries tonight. Unfortunately, Samuel has oftentimes violated several policies simultaneously, and categorizing the evidence under specific headers is problematic. I tried this before posting the evidence, but it didn't seem to work. ---Olaf Stephanos 14:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi

I have created a discussion regarding the edits to Li Hongzhi. You can find the discussion here →Talk:Li_Hongzhi#Disputed_Edits. Since your involved in the article, your input is requested. ---J.S (T/C/WRE)

help wanted

I need your help. I am a new member of wikipeida. I find the article of "Tibet" or "history of tibet" in wikipeida is very biased towards pro-independent Tibetans. I have strong evidence to prove what I said. I made some edit and added some important facts. However, they are deleted. The problem is: I am not familiar with the rules of wikipeida and I probable won't have time to get familiar with it. So, I need your help so that truth can be known by people. You can find my deleted versions in the history of that topic. The main source of my information is in the following. This is probably the most complete and detailed information source on the Tibet issue. But it is not listed in the reference list of Tibet page yet. I remember the content of this website is from Chinese government’s white paper on Tibet issue. If you go to the official website of Tibetan in exiles, you will find that although they are very unhappy with these information. They could not point out any major problems about these facts. It would be better if you can have a quick look of this website and add whatever information you want.

"The historical status of tibet", by China internet information center. It cab be found at the website of:

www.china.org.cn/ch-xizang/tibet/historical_status/english/index.html

www.china.org.cn/ch-xizang/tibet/indexE.html

Many thanks.

Xiaoliang1

Wiki Rules applied inconsistently? Seeking clarification

Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint. I wanted to keep the query to the ArbCom decision talk page but if I can't get an answer there, please give me a reply either here on your talk page, or preferably, my talk page, thanks!

1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)

2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once again an inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.

3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?

4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?

5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Wikipedia + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)

Now just one suggestion:

1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves). Jsw663 19:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This matter raises serious problems for Wikipedia due to both the crackbrained nature of Falun Gong and the vicious campaign of repression undertaken by the Chinese state apparatus. Neither of those organizations, or their supporters can be considered reliable sources. But where is there an objective, even half-way neutral third party source? The two banned parties were engaged in biased editing in a rather determined way, but certainly both supporters and parrots of the government position have serious conflict of interest problems too. This problem is probably beyond the bounds of what our policies and guidelines can handle. What we have done is ban the two worst offenders and promised to review the situation with them gone. Fred Bauder 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(Thanks, Fred) Jsw663 13:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.
• Mcconn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
• Samuel Luo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.
• Tomananda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.
• Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

you are annoying

you whiny little bitch. korean girls are all kimchi sluts. kim jong il is a pygmy.

kim il sung is a worthless murdererin little bitch —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.50.65.139 (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Coming from someone supposedly from South Korea, the above statement is surprising! Unless of course this user is not Korean, in which case either a) why not leave South Korea, unless you are a US soldier, or b) why hide your identity by rerouting your IP address through a S Korean one, or c) someone who is ashamed of his own heritage. In all three cases the above user still hasn't made clear of why he insists on hiding behind an IP address. Jsw663 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the last tirade, I don't see why I have to be fiercely anti-commie to be rightist, but I know for sure I'm not a fascist. It's not like I support appeasement after all, but supporting US worldwide colonization is not the way forward either. Jsw663 11:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

The reason I didn't object to the name change at a certain point was that there was precedent from several other WP articles named Persecution of (whatever). Personally, I'm tired of wasting so much time on reining in the swarms or proselytes bent on producing an advertisement for Li Hongzhi's wacky personal religion. If Wikipedia wants there to be a neutral article, then it is time for other editors to step up and work it out. --Fire Star 火星 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jsw I read your message and wanted to thank you for your contributions to the articles and (mostly) their discussions. I feel it is a bit of a shame that you will not contribute in the future. Certainly your differing opinions and sincere efforts not to strongly take any side, that is your trying to maintain NPOV, were noted welcomed, and will be welcome at any time into the future. I wish you good luck with whatever you should spend your time on now. For my part, I have also found it difficult to find sufficient time to put into improving these articles recently, because of work, study, and other societal committments.

I think, above all it is great that you did not leave on a negative note. Your advice to everyone is true and wise; to be discerning, read material from both sides, and your general exhortation that people have personal integrity. This is so relevant. In the face of the deep injustice of the persecution of Falun Gong and the subsequent smear campaign, the cruel torture and beatings of innocent people including women, and the systematic, profit-driven live organ harvesting, a call to integrity is truly fitting. I think to recognise this is the most important thing, and I feel gratified that you recognise this deeply important factor to human life, even amidst other differing opinions. Thank you and good luck!--Asdfg12345 03:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: although I completely disagree with the following sentences: "In the face of the deep injustice of the persecution of Falun Gong and the subsequent smear campaign, the cruel torture and beatings of innocent people including women, and the systematic, profit-driven live organ harvesting, a call to integrity is truly fitting. I think to recognise this is the most important thing," for reasons that I have previously noted - that I contest FG allegations to the utmost - I do thank you for a generally positive farewell message. Your positive turnaround to becoming a polite and mature editor is good for Wiki, although Wiki certainly needs a few rule-abiding anti-FGers to provide a more balanced picture for FG-related entires currently. Jsw663 16:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong

Heartening to know you keeping an eye on this article. I was beginning to feel a bit alone fighting blatant POV-pushers. Thanks for stopping by! Would appreciate your views on whether you feel this is better or worse than when you left. Also appreciate your views on the main articles where I have been targeting the most effort : Persecution of Falun Gong, Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. Progress is slow, but I have a FG practitioner as sort of an "ally" (strange bedfellows indeed!). Ohconfucius 14:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

*** It's their MO to harrase and intimidate critics. I should know. Ever since I found out their "live organ harvesting" allegation is BS, and their "sexual torture" photo is in reality breat cancer, and decided out them, they have been very nasty to me. I have documented encounters with Falun Gong's newspaper Epoch Times: http://falungongpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/04/epoch-times-reporters-gone-wild.html

(The above was written by Bobby_fletcher, but I have removed it from my user page and placed it here on the discussion page instead.) Jsw663 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the message. Although I don’t totally agree with Samuel I do appreciate his website; it provides information that is not available elsewhere. It should be linked to the faln gong page, but unfortunately it’s a personal site. --Majontomorrow (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fascism

I know I shouldn't be picking a fight of this sort with a PS student, but I just couldn't help it. There are a few issues which I believe your arguments fail to address, but I don't wan this debate in the FG page. I don't believe expansionism is necessarily part of the fascist ideology. Nevertheless, China has shown its expansionist tendencies in the "liberation" of Tibet, as well as its continued sabre-rattling over Taiwan, which I think are serious and will be carried out, especially if the people of Taiwan decide on independence. Hong Kong and Macao would not have been handed back to China so successfully, with all fundamental freedoms intact, if they were not destined as showpieces to placate Taiwan. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, it appears to have stepped into its shoes as a world counterbalance to "American hegemony". Race or nationalism, however, is part of the ethos of fascism. China's culture is dominated by the Han ethinic group, and minorities are not at all well catered for, but let's not use the word "persecution". China is not a free-market capitalist country by any stretch - the regime is state capitalism, where all the major means of production are still controlled by the state, albeit it a much less dirigist fashion than before. Its leaders have been careful to redefine many generally accepted concepts in their own favour to sustain their own power: for example, state capitalism has become "Socialism with Chinese characteristics", and "democracy", now means "intra-party democracy". Corruption is endemic as it is deeply ingrained in the system of political patronage. Many former heads of state-owned companies have become billionaires, hailed as "successful entrepreneurs" and still owe their fortunes to the countries' rulers. Companies can "export" Yuans through blatant transfer underpricing of their goods under cover of re-exportation, while entrepreneurs who act as undergound banks are treated as crime overlords. It is utterly intolerant of dissent, there is no unfettered access to the internet, no press freedom as we know it, and let's not talk about human rights. What is animal that looks like a dog, behaves like a dog and barks like a dog? No country dares to refer to China as fascist for fear of damaging economic relations, it's that simple. Please note that these are only my personal views............. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, your political opinion sways you from looking at facts from absolute objectivity.

1. Fascism. Why isn't expansionism a key part of fascism? Don't you realize fascist countries see it as a 'need' to expand in order to subjugate the sub-humans to 'cleanse' the world?

2. Tibet. If anything this region was 'conquered' by the Qing dynasty under a monarch, not the Communists. Self-proclamation of independence does not mean that you have justified independence either (e.g. Chechenya for Russia). However, Tibet and (Outer) Mongolia 'wanted' to be independent because of support of outside powers (England/India for Tibet, Russia/Soviet Union for Mongolia). Since power played a big part in the politics of that time, and the Chinese Communist government was initially allied with their Soviet counterparts, the Mongolia 'buffer' state was created and accepted (Mongolia was of course created earlier, but its independence was recognized by the CCP/CPC as well, hence it has 'legitimacy'). Anyway, whether you view Tibet as independent or not again depends on your political opinion. It's a gray area that needs to be cleared up, and still hasn't been, and thus on Wiki we really should let the reader decide for themselves. However, as long as the United Nations recognizes Tibet as being a part of the PRC, this will be the most 'official' version of the political status of Tibet today. Notice I'm not making a right/wrong morality judgment here.

3. HK / Macau. HK has developed very differently from Macau post-'97. You only need to visit these two places to realize the difference - the former contains citizens who are inherently liberal in their ideas and many still are opposed to the Chinese government except for business, whereas for the latter, the city has almost totally become a proper PRC one, with widespread Putonghua media, de-colonization, etc. Saying HK has freedoms only because of Taiwan's lack of re-unification at present is an opinion, and has thus no place on any Wiki entry.

4. China's domestic race relations. Notice the Han majority isn't 'clamping down' on all races. It only targets the races which are most likely to be restless and seek to overthrow authority. It is because of the fear of being overthrown that they try to use different means to ensure peace will ensue. This is where the mistake lies - people assuming it's a race-witchhunt as supposed to a political move. After all, do you see China conquering other countries to destroy other races? Do you see China moving into Central Asia to deal with Uyghur Muslims, or into India to deal with Tibetans? Compare this with Nazi Germany.

5. Capitalism in China - the only accurate label for the economy in China will be a fairly vague label. One such label widely used by economists is a "mixed-market economy" for China. However, with the state loosening its ownership over companies, e.g. by listing them on the stock market (thus 100% control --> 70% control) means that the market can no longer be called state-controlled, i.e. traditionally communist.

6. Corruption in China - as with all countries, corruption exists, and even the CCP/CPC admits that this is especially bad in the PRC right now. However, does endemic corruption mean that the state ideology or system has changed?

Conclusion: Don't let your opinions get in the way for Wiki's main entries. Of course everyone has their opinion on matters they know something about, but Wiki is not a battleground. As long as you stick to being objective when editing the Falun Gong entries, and AVOID GETTING DRAWN INTO OPINION DISCUSSION AT ALL COSTS, then you will be the perfect Wiki editor. This is why I was hated by both sides for being too pro-the other side, but Wiki arbitrators have basically backed up my stance, even if it is a bit blunt at times. If not for time, I'd spend more time editing Wiki for sure, but after this response it's unlikely I'll be making any big replies soon. Continue to keep up the good work editing, Ohconfucius! I'll definitely keep watching over the FG-related pages. Jsw663 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, there's no censorship in China. Where, pray, do you live, JSW? Pot calling the kettle black, methinks ;-) Seriously, I never claimed to be unbiased and without opinions, but I do try leaving them at the door before editing, so would you please cut me some slack. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhh pardon me Ohconfucius/Forthesakeof, when or where did I say that there was no censorship in China, or that China was the shining beacon of individualistic human freedom? I was merely trying to reinforce Wikipedian rules for Wikipedia - not prejudging any government as evil or fascist if it doesn't claim to be. You may find many governments repugnant, or that its ruling style doesn't match its description, but that is opinion, not fact - we should let the reader judge for him/herself. If you're getting stressed about Wiki editing I suggest you take a break from Wikipedia. Jsw663 (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FG article

External links

I fear you may be getting muddled, as this has absolutely zilch to do with my disdain for our "red" comrades. As I said in the article's talk page, I removed the link to the 'Falun Gong hijacks China city's TV airwaves' article because it was not directly relevant, nor do I consider the article sufficiently broadly based to be so linked. Furthermore, the subject of the links are dealt with in much greater depth in the Persecution article. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bush and Chinese democracy

Pardon me for saying this, but you do sound a bit like Hu Jintao, who harked on non-stop about democracy at the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China as if he was a new-found convert to liberal democracy, when in fact he was talking about a mechanism for perpetuating single-party rule. Interestingly enough many of the party delegates didn't even know why they were there, according to interviews with the press. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2007 (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) 03:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jsw663. You have new messages at Ohconfucius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

February 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Falun Gong. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup

You're invited to the next Hong Kong meetup on 19 August in Think Cafe, Causeway Bay. Please sign up to the meetup on the meta meetup page. Hope to see you there! Deryck C. 15:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Jsw663! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 20:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (Falun Gong) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Clarification motion

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)