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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment here [1]. Thank You --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

ps - also here are some facts about:

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

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

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

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

Bobby fletcher 2:18 17 December 2007 (PST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see you couldn't stay away, and decided to get your hands dirty with CIPFG! Although I suspect he may be a FG person, I cannot tell what Ave Caesar's allegiances are. However, I think he is succeeding in tainting you. I would urge you to keep low for now. You may be surprised at the outcome if the temperature stays cool. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you get some free time, please have a look here, I would appreciate your comments on the CIPFG and Epoch Times, as they relay to the FG series of articles as a whole. MrPrada (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. personal attacks, some assuming bad faith: [2], [3], [4], [5]
2. attempt at "outing", sometimes with personal attacks mixed in: [6], [7], [8] -- Please note, these are only a sample. Attempted "outing" goes back months, and Fred Bauder oversighted it. But the user has continued recently.
3. original research: [9] -- Please note, the user has not aggressively reinserted this after it was pointed out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for disruption at Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Remedies. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

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

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 16:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

re: Jossi's 1 week block over Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong, I was blocked previously by Blnguyen back in May over the same incident per [10], and I have never touched the article since. Please shorten the block per Tiptoety's block

Decline reason:

You weren't blocked for edit warring on Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong, you were blocked for edit warring on Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China, which you were. Request for unblock declined. — _Gb^T/c 17:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I was in fact already blocked by Tiptoety for 24 hours along with two other users involved over reverts at Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China, and this block is fair and I'm not contesting that. I'm referring to Jossi's one week block which clearly stated that I was blocked over an old incident at Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun back in May [11], which I was already blocked for by Blnguyen. [12], which was failed to be take into account. I'm not actually asked to be unblocked per see, but simply reverted to the original 24 hour block per Tiptoety.

Decline reason:

Block shortened to the original expiry time of 24 hours. I fully agree with jossi, and any continuance of edit warring will result in an immediate and longer block. Please be more careful in future. Thanks. — PeterSymonds (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is regarding this particular edit of yours on the article "Sound of Hope":[13]. There is no need add a non-factual "alleged" here and there. Please note that Amnesty, HRW, The US Congress as well as All Major Governments ( Ref: David Ownby ) clearly state this is a major human rights tragedy. Amnesty has released reports on the persecution of hundreds of practitioners, and many western countries grant asylum to practitioners. In light of all this data, you may want to remove the adjective "alleged" you have inserted at a couple of places in the article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

There are two instances of "alleged"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, there is a mediator at Talk:Falun Gong now. See if you want to join in the discussion--Edward130603 (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Anti-communist mass killings. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-communist mass killings. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love it! I know exactly why you made that one... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pot calling the kettle black --PCPP (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed these two edits you made [14][15]. There is an ongoing discussion about the second one; Rahn's is without a source, and so is Nan's. I will undo those changes, pending discussion. The first removed several seemingly legitimate additions to the article. Please consider discussing the changes. At the moment, the reason for deleting the information, and adding information that was unsourced, is unclear. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage in discussion on the relevant pages. If there is a perspective that you think needs balancing, please do some research and balance it. The editors around here, including myself, are trying to improve the pages with good content. You are just pulling it apart because it doesn't reflect your POV. Do some research and come back, don't just belittle the attempts of other editors. I am going to open an RfC about your conduct, because it extends further than to the Falun Gong pages. --Asdfg12345 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PCPP. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PCPP, where you may want to participate. Asdfg12345 01:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PCPP. I have left a note on the Falun Gong talk page requesting an explanation for your recent changes. Thank you. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCPP, I just have a request: please stop deleting sourced information. It's simple. If you need to delete something, consider moving it to the talk page instead and giving a clear explanation for why you felt it necessary to remove. I am doing research and attempting to build this encyclopedia. If you think you can improve on that, it's great. So far, all I have seen you do is belittle my contributions, soften the terms that describe the CCP and its methods, delete sourced material, and add unsourced stuff. It's bizarre. I've never seen anything like it. I request that you stop. --Asdfg12345 08:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is to bring to your attention the AE thread on your behavior on Falun Gong and related articles, initiated on 9th March, 2010. Dilip rajeev (talk)

Kindly note the WP:AE case above has just been filed. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Falun Gong if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Final decision. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of fairness, and as a requirement of discretionary sanctions, I would say PCPP should be told clearly how he can improve his conduct. I have some ideas:

• Don't always delete and water down other people's contributions;
• Explain your opinion clearly on the talk page without accusing anyone of bad faith;
• Don't continually revert things;
• When removing relevant, neutrally written, and sourced material from an article, please cut it and paste it onto the talk page, with an explanation. This will make it easier for others to track what you have deleted;
• When discussing things, try to convince others of why your ideas have merit on the basis of wiki content policy. --Asdfg12345 00:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my AE case, I've since left my response, and I'm just wondering how are the FLG article sanctions relevant to the articles on the Chinese government? And why was an article block suggestion given to me, while Dilip, who had had a long history of more outrageous behavior, wasn't given such?--PCPP (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Items 5-6 are relevant to you. As for Dilip, there is a proposal on ANI that he be banned indefinitely. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I request that I may please be allowed to point out that these allegations of edit warring , etc. raised against me by these users are not based on evidence, but merely serve as a mechanism for diverting attention from truly disruptive edits certain users are engaged in. I humbly request I be judged by my contributions and not by surface allegations, exaggerations and distortions certain users raise. Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have moved the above AE case to ANI - particularly since the behavior of yours extends to all pages related to Communist party, not just those on Falun Gong.Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I already read all those. I'm reading through the more obscure policies and guidelines now. There is some excellent advice throughout. Look forward to working together. Homunculus (strange tales) 12:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that Jayen should discuss the issue with other editors and reach a consensus before helping Dilip restore the article. Dilip's editing problems has been highlighted in the recent AE case, where he attempted to completely revert a FLG article into a 2009 version with little discussion. There has been a lengthy debate on the subject [16] which found that the information provided an undue weight and being a FLG sponsored report with no independent assessment. This is a clear issue with coattracking, and I really don't think that Dilip needs an admin to hold his hands while the concerns regarding his editing problems by other editors gets brushed aside.--PCPP (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising your concern with me. I have looked into the background that you indicated, and will bear the concerns previously raised in mind. It appears to me that the intention is to create an article on the Kilgour-Matas report itself, rather than revive Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. My observation is that the report verifiably exists, and has attracted enough attention in reliable sources to pass our notability criteria. The report itself has been criticised, and so an article on the report would need to meet our NPOV policy and include a balanced discussion on responses to its findings. Such an article would then be neither pro nor anti FG. However, before such an article is created I would like to see the material on the report that is contained in Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China tidied up, and a decent rationale given as to why the material in that article is not sufficient. Bearing your concerns in mind, and being aware that creating an article on the Kilgour-Matas report would attract attention and potential criticism, if a decision to go ahead with creating such an article seems viable, then an immediate AfD would be appropriate, and I would create one as a matter of course, reserving the right to !vote independently in such a discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 12:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCPP. Under this motion editors working on Falun Gong articles are subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. Be aware that edits like this, and this are going to be challenged and if such edits persist are likely to result in sanctions being imposed. I note that a discussion has taken place regarding these edits, and that you have appropriately got involved in that discussion, giving your views, and that you have since refrained from editing the article. This is very positive. I would suggest that, regardless of the temptation, if you encounter other Falun Gong related articles with material that you feel is misplaced, that you raise your concerns on the talkpage and wait for a response from other editors rather than directly removing the material. If you have raised the matter on the talkpage and nobody has responded within a reasonable time, then feel free to request an opinion from me. SilkTork *^YES! 23:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning to ask you to stop edit warring and name calling. Action will be taken if you continue. Asdfg12345 16:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, let me be more transparent. Here is is the link to the decision authorising sanctions. Some specific steps that you can take to improve your editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines include: no name calling, no edit warring, no deleting good research with no explanation, etc. Thank you. Asdfg12345 16:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the links! Both of those are great sources. The true success of the Chinese revolution is there for all to see. Liars like Dikotter and Chang are using a slurry of bullshit and rhetoric to bury the truth. The inconvenient thing is, the facts of China's social and economic progress, not only during the past 30 years, but also during Mao, just will not go away.

This of course gives certain Westerners a lot of heartache. Hence their outrageous lies and slander.

All the best.

Prairespark (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this ain't the first time Arilang1234 has offered an alleged "apology"

Arilang1234 has a history of offering insincere apologies. He pushes his insolence to the limit, and then suddenly "apologizes" and backs down when his account is on the verge of being reported and blocked. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians Arilang1234 first went into hate filled rants against Mongols and Manchus, not just calling them barbarians, but personally attacking editors like Madalibi, accusing him of "Gestapo-style of Thought Police action", of being "Dr. Fu Manchu's reincarnation," and even of "denying the holocaust"!),

Arilang1234 then offered an "apology", saying- "take back my comments on calling other editors (including user Madalibi) twisting the rules, if ever other editors think that my comments were of personal attacks, I am sorry if I have hurt anyone's delicate feelings and I shall apology to them with all my sincerity, and I solemnly promise that there shall not be a second time. On me calling User Madalibi various names, "Gestapo-style of Thought Police action"Dr. Fu Manchu's reincarnation,"denying the holocaust all these names calling are just jokes

If we look at this incident, which happened January 2009, and his current apology, you will see him conveying the same, insincere, sarcastic message.Дунгане (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

never mind, i saw the name calling section where you posted this same incident in a link. but it still is disturbing on how Arilang1234's current apology is worded in exactly the same way as his previous "apology".Дунгане (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I believe Arilang deserves more than an official slap on the wrist for his "jokes".--PCPP (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can you find the link to the "apology" He made to you? Someone has got to see this guy tries pushing all our buttons up to when hes about to get blocked, then fakes a sarcastic apology actually insulting the recipient- claiming peoples feelings are "delicate".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion over at ANI on a user. I would appreciate your input. You were one of the editors participating in the previous discussion, and I'm currently informing all the editors involved.--hkr (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you and me had "cross swords" too many times in the past, I still like to say "thank you" when you voted against a topic ban on me. Thanks. Arilang ^talk 03:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, is on article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be a bit more blunt. The recent edit by PCPP, in which he completely undoes a painstaking series of edits I made, and reached consensus on with another editor, is extremely disruptive and goes very much against the spirit of the articles probation policy. Myself and Homunculus, a non-aligned editor, are engaged in a discussion of the edits and how to improve the page. PCPP has unilaterally reverted it, as usual. It can't be emphasised enough how disruptive this is to any kind of productive working environment. He continually poisons the atmosphere in this manner. I am reverting and explaining myself. I won't get into a 'war', but I expect others, by now, will be completely fed up. --Asdfg12345 17:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PCPP, your edits to this page recently are uniquely disruptive. I cannot but wonder what your intention is; if you desire to see the page contain a level and honest description of events and views, I must inform you that your participation so far is not conducive to this end. Instead, the level of aggression and persistent POV-pushing that you display derails any substantive conservation and leads other editors to turn on you. Prior to your arrival here, we were in the midst of a substantive discussion on how to improve the article, and were in the process of reaching agreements on some changes. You then proceeded to revert these changes without discussion. They were restored and explained, but before the discussion could continue, you then reverted wholesale again. This time you offered minimal discussion in which you made several specious arguments that you failed to substantiate or defend. Once changes were restored again (by me this time), you made sweeping reverts again with a minimal edit summary that concealed the substance of your changes. All this in the span of a couple days. I expect to be able to come here and engage in reasonable discussions on matters of substance and evidence. I have no problem with disagreements, and in fact very much enjoy civil debates. But this seems quite impossible when you are around; edit wars seem to accompany you wherever you go. I do not appreciate that I asked Asdfg a valid question about one the changes he made, but then realized that you had obviated my question by reverting seconds later. I similarly do not appreciate that you cannot be taken at your word; I realize now that it is necessary to check your edit summaries against your various difs. You also misrepresent the rationale cited by other editors for their changes. Now, I can assume good faith and believe that these are innocent mistakes, and part of me is inclined to do this. But I am beginning to suspect that there is a certain amount of deliberate disruption and deception here. You may consider taking a step back from these articles and going for a nice long walk. Homunculus (duihua) 16:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this after the shock I got in the recent kerfuffle. Completely agree. I actually wish he would just go away. All PCPP does is POV-push, and he's done it for years (looking at the RfC someone compiled a while ago). I will actually stop editing that page if it keeps it up, so you can't say his tactics don't work. —Zujine|talk 19:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please do not stop editing the page because of this user's aggression. That would be a loss for the encyclopedia. I suggest just taking it easy, not getting into any kind of revert fight or other kind of fight, and stating your rational thoughts on the state of the article and the changes being made; simply that input itself, if it's explained and reasonable, would be valuable. --Asdfg12345 19:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted twice on the page List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll. Please explain why. You say in your edit summaries that you are not satisfied that the sources cited for the inclusion of Falun Gong on this list are reliable. Which sources, specifically? You seem to be taking issue with the low-end estimate of 3,000 for the number of Falun Gong deaths under persecution. If that is the case, I would recommend that an appropriate course of action is not to delete the entire row on Falun Gong without discussion. If you take issue with the quality of one reference, you might instead try to find a better source than the one offered, or ask other editors to provide one. I am reverting you again. Homunculus (duihua) 18:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I will hold off on reverting you. Your behavior is counter-productive, but I ought not reciprocate it. Perhaps there is a better answer to the reliable sources question, so I will start a discussion and see what kind of solution emerges. Homunculus (duihua) 18:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, appearing merely 4 hours after my edits and begin reverting, you're obviously up to something. And no, the figure comes from the FLG Information Center, which fails RS as I explained. The Reuters article simply quotes from them, and the stuff about the organ harvesting does not belong there either. The material is added simply to prove a POINT.--PCPP (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make sense of this comment. What are you getting at when you say I am "up to something"? My interest is in improving this encyclopedia, and it is most unfortunate that guarding against reckless deletions of content has become part of that task. Homunculus (duihua) 19:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. You made your revert merely 4 hours after I made my edits, after days of inactivity. I don't know whether you're here to edit an encyclopedia or help spread FLG propaganda.--PCPP (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not recognize that you were asking a question. Now that I know, I don't feel the slightest obligation to answer to your accusations of bad faith. You would be better to stick to facts, my friend. Homunculus (duihua) 19:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PCPP. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In application and enforcement of WP:AFLG#Motions, per this AE thread, you are topic-banned (as per WP:TBAN) from Falun Gong for four months.  Sandstein  23:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Arilang1234 might be having another go at his twisted POV pushing on the boxer rebellion article.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your recent edit to the Shanghai Expo page, I would appreciate if you participated in the talk page discussion before deleting content. I had already explained why I added the information on the main page, and you failed to engage. Now that you've returned to editing, I hope you can reform these tendencies, lest new sanctions be brought against you in the future. Homunculus (duihua) 02:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have again deleted sourced content from the page without engaging in discussion. In your edit summary, you suggested that the two sentenced from the NYTimes was undue weight, and then argued that it should not be included in the article on the basis of its appearance elsewhere in this encyclopedia. I am not familiar with the latter argument as a valid one—is there a guideline or policy I am not familiar with that stipulates there are to be no redundancies anywhere on this site? As to your other objection, you have yet to explain why you believe it is undue weight. Please do so on the talk page. Homunculus (duihua) 18:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an extensive discussion by Benlisquare on the discussion page on why the content don't belong. That section deals with the number of people attending the Expo, not controversies and concerns. By the way you phrased it, you're blowing it out of proportion and make it as if very Chinese attended by government orders, which cleary violates WP:UNDUE. Even the article stated that there are genuine interest in the expo which resulted in queues and ticket scalping.--PCPP (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you check these three newly created articles on books:

• 1900 National Upheaval
• 1901: The shadow of an Empire
• Divine Boxing: The real Yihetuan

And see if they meet the quality standards? I believe that currently it goes more into an analysis of the events from one POV, than any discussion of the book or author.--PCPP (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are poorly written in terms of prose, and of establishing why these books are notable. They mainly consist of a plot of the books, which is against policy - WP:NOTPLOT. Given that they are of poor quality, and do not clearly establish notability, they need cleaning up. I am not able to give an opinion on their notability as I have not searched for sources. Nor am I able to give an opinion on their POV, as I don't know the books in question. The articles are being actively edited; however, if they haven't made significant progress in terms of providing sources to meet the notability criteria in WP:NBOOK within another week or so, it would be appropriate to take them to AfD for a community discussion. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 00:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know you don't know me yet, but there is a discussion concerning Arilang1234 and POV pushing at the dispute resolution noticeboard and I mentioned previous complainants against him at AN/I and I mentioned the case you brought to AN/I about him in January. You can comment or not comment, but it's only fair that I give you a head's up. Thank you! NickDupree (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cults and governments since you contributed to the article. Borock (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up: I posted an extensive summary of your recent changes to Falun Gong on the talk page, and hope you can go there to answer for these edits in a constructive manner.

On another note, your statement directed at Olaf strikes me as inappropriate. Please comment on the substance of edits, rather than resorting to personal attacks or accusing others of bias. In particular, you may wish to refer to WP:NPA, which forbids "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." This includes religious affiliations.—Zujine|talk 21:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go away. Olaf, as admitted by himself, is a committed FLG activist, and thus has clear COI issues. I'm simply pointing this out.--PCPP (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that I intend to file an arbitration request against you for edit waring at Falun Gong. I will send you a link to the thread when I am finished.—Zujine|talk 06:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration enforcement request has been filed here[17]. You may go there to state your case.—Zujine|talk 07:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your response at the AE thread would be appreciated. T. Canens (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the authority of WP:ARBFLG#Discretionary sanctions, and for the reasons stated in this AE thread, you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Falun Gong, broadly construed across all namespaces, for a minimum of eight months. After eight months, and every four months thereafter, you may apply to have this sanction reviewed at AE. You may also appeal this sanction to AE once within the next eight months, and may appeal to the arbitration committee at any time. The topic ban shall remain in force until it is lifted on appeal. T. Canens (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCPP. I am opening an AE case on you for your recent Falun Gong-related editing/deletions on the CI page. Will update with the diff in a moment. Best regards. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_PCPP. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. NW (Talk) 18:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

I could not have imagined a nicer way [sic] to start the new year. It now seems that some pro-Falun Gong editors have stepped into the breach voided by the topic ban on Olaf, Dilip and Happy. For you, it means you cannot make any edits anywhere, even if it is to remove a citation to an unreliable and propagandistic source is prohibited to you. Tread carefully, and happy editing! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCPP. I am opening a new AE case on you for your recent Falun Gong-related editing/deletions on the CI and DRN pages. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PCPP. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCPP, nice to make your acquaintance. I just wanted to add to TransporterMan's note that one of the administrators at the thread linked above has said that he would like to hear a response from you. It's up to you whether to respond or not, of course, but I believe it may help in this case. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the recent AE report concerning you. You are admonished for editing in articles that could be construed as related to your topic ban. I would remind you that per WP:TBAN, topic bans are broadly construed, that means if an article has Falun Gong even referenced in it you are in jeopardy of violating your ban. Future violations of your topic ban will lead to a long term block. Please let me know if you have any questions. --WGFinley (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PCPP. You have new messages at Mr. Stradivarius's talk page.
Message added 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been brought to AE twice already for violating your most recent topic ban, and warned repeatedly to stay away from anything related to Falun Gong or the Epoch Times. I think your recent edit here[18] is another likely violation. Your other recent behavior, such as the deletions of sourced content here[19][20] seems consistent with long-standing patterns of deleting (ever without discussion) any content that might impugn the reputation of the Chinese Communist Party.

If you have legitimate concerns that content violates policy, particularly if deleting that content yourself seems like a possible topic ban violation, I recommend you raise it first on the talk page and ask other editors to intervene. I will also note that I find your patterns of editing strange. Namely, you almost exclusively edit pages (by which I mean deleting swaths of content without discussion) to which I've made recent, substantial contributions. I think this quite easily satisfies the definition of WP:HOUNDING:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

I advise that you stop.Homunculus (duihua) 14:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that the hounding policy also says, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Given that you both edit controversial Chinese political topics (PCPP's editing purview is actually broader), it's not surprising that you would run into each other often. It's better to cultivate a good relationship than to threaten each other with sanctions. Maybe PCPP's style wasn't the most comfortable for you, but other users have noted that some of your edits demand immediate attention per WP:BLP. Shrigley (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...other users have noted that some of your edits demand immediate attention per WP:BLP" — this statement might be interpreted to suggest that BLP violations are part of an established pattern of editing. I anticipate that PCPP's talk page will be referred to in a subsequent AE case, so I want to make sure that your meaning here is unambiguous. You are referring to Colipon's suggestion that my edits to John Liu gave undue weight to controversies surrounding his campaign finance scandal. I have responded on the corresponding talk page, and have, I believe, addressed those concerns.

PCPP's pattern of editing does not involve fixing unambiguous errors. It involves going to pages where I have made recent, substantial edits, and proceeding to delete large swaths of content without discussion. Given the dozens of warnings he has received over this behavior, I am left to conclude that PCPP is being deliberately provocative. Homunculus (duihua) 22:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello PCPP. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this edit[21], in which you delete information attributed to an eminent China scholar "per BLP"? How, specifically, does this information violate BLP?

Also, I told you a couple months ago to stop following me around. I'll say it again. The Wikipedia policy on harassment counsels against hounding, which is defined as:

the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

With very, very few exceptions, you edit exclusively on pages and discussions where I have contributed, almost always adopting an adversarial or contrarian approach. You have done this at Zhang Xianliang, Terrorism in the People's Republic of China, Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes, Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo Guagua, Bo Guagua, Lei Feng, among others. Can you tell me why you're doing this? Homunculus (duihua) 07:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not all that obvious that he's "following [you] around", but it's been obvious from the start that your paths would cross a lot because you seem to share a lot of common areas/topics of interest, as with me. We also know that PCPP has been subject to a topic ban on another favourite topic area of yours, and he seems not to be in a hurry to go back there. Perhaps that little corner would be 'sanctuary' from his hounding [sic]. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respects, I don't see how an opinion article from the 80's can be can be constructed as facts about Zhang. The subject of the article was later arrested and had his works censored due to his support of Tiananmen Square student protesters, while in modern China he's also known as somewhat of a nationalist due to his support of anti-Japanese protests.--PCPP (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It came to my attention at an AE thread that you had made a pretty obvious violation of your topic ban. I'm not going to block you for it, because it occurred a few days ago, but you're skating on very thin ice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to edit that article at the moment, but that article is not covered under WP:FLG sanctions, and per WP:TBAN,

Weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is--PCPP (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to notice at your talk page above, "you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Falun Gong, broadly construed". It tells "related", and this article mentioned "Falun Gong" several times. So, please do not do it. Rules are rules.My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not see this. Well, I think that you initiating a dispute resolution procedure is just another violation of your topic ban, because it includes discussions. I am not a wikilayer, but this seem rather obvious, especially after your previous history of edit warring in this article. And this is your second topic ban? I do not know what to say ... My very best wishes (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, do I understand correctly that you was already blocked for editing article "Controversies" as a topic ban violation [22], continued edit war in the same article, ignored warning by administrator above, and now started dispute resolution about very same article? My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you returned to editing and did not answer my questions, I submitted this evidence to Arbcom. You are welcome to respond there if you think that would be appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Tuesday evening (4 September). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 6. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 00:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Singapore)

Hello PCPP. I hope that we can begin anew to resolve our Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes dispute that was suspended on 18 June. I asked User: Mr. Stradivarius about the best way to proceed and he suggested filing a new DRN case. Would you like to manage that? Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've left a note on Mr. Stradivarius's talk page and asked him to reopen the case, regard--PCPP (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup on Wednesday the 31st of October. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 7. Hope you can make it. JVbot (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Singapore)

Hi PCPP, welcome back. Would you please open a new DRN for Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes? Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've just came back from China and had some personal stuff to sort out first.--PCPP (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked to see how long we've been waiting to resolve the CCoCI article dispute. You filed the DRN case (12 June 2012) that was suspended pending the AE decision and bans. You said, "I'll be happy to reopen the case" (6 September) but asked to postpone "until I get back in mid October" (24 September). You told me above, "No problem" (15 December 2012), and told Mr. Stradivarius, "I'm ready to resume the DR case on the Confucius Institute article" (17 December). You apologized again and said, "I'll try my best to reopen it this week" (13 January 2013). What are you waiting for? I'd like to move forward and bring the article up to date (including the McMaster CI closure). However, if you no longer wish to resolve this, just let me know. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be request for comment. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCPP, I hope your health is improving. Following Guy Macon's suggestion, I've copied our remaining DRN discussion to Talk:Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes#Finishing the dispute resolution. We should probably be able to compromise on the details in a short time. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are feeling better. Just wanted to let you know that I'm going to add our points of consensus into the C&CoCI article, and we can wait for you to decide on the remaining ones. I'll also add the new references for 2012-2013. Please make any changes you like. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	"The Defender of the Wiki is awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes" - STSC (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for 48 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This block is due to your continued breaches of your existing topic ban, through postings at WP:AE and other talkpages. You were told several times that WP:BANEX doesn't cover these activities of yours, but have continued with multiple further postings. You also received similar warnings on earlier occasions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Future, I wanted to clarify something, what is the best place to do so?--PCPP (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to have something clarified about the nature of your topic ban, you can do that here (while you're blocked) or on any other relevant talkpage (later). Only please make sure that whatever you say doesn't again contain accusations and calls for sanctions against other users active in the topic area, or claims about the topic area or the state of the articles within it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through my past sanctions, I found that I was topic banned under this [23], but there is also this [24]. I am unsure which TB I'm covered under.--PCPP (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. The first page just lists a couple of your early blocks (from before the time these logs were unified elsewhere), while the second only contains a motion about a different user, User:Ohconfucius, which seems to be quite unrelated to you (you are not him, are you?) – The TB relevant to you appears to be the one logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2011#Falun_Gong, on 9 November 2011 by T. Canens. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing personal but I think Future Perfect at Sunrise should not have claimed as "uninvolved admin" based on this:[25] STSC (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@STSC: I didn't at first intend to even grace this objection with a reply, but just for the record: I've seen a lot of spurious accusations of admin "involved" status, but this is certainly among the most bizarre ones. Would you care to explain? Or no, actually, don't. This intervention of yours has been yet another breach of your own topic ban, so don't follow up on it even with another reply to this. You are not entitled to comment on discussions related to Falun Gong, under whatever pretext. That includes the discussion of administrative actions, complaints etc. related to actions of other editors in this field. The only exception to this would be actions that were directed immediately at you by somebody else, which was not the case here. So, take this as the absolutely final warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your amendment request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Amendment request: Falun Gong. (September 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PCPP. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Falun Gong and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 05:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This ARCA request has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]