Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to get some advice, but I guess that since ArbCom case is open and the Li Hongzhi page is protected, this could be a good place for it.

My point/case:

I read both the Li Hongzhi page and the Biographies of living person policy and I notice several things that are not in accordance with this policy on the Li Hongzhi page, so I started making a draft here: Talk:Li_Hongzhi/Edit_request_2007-02-14.

Could you please review the changes I propose in this draft and let me know if these changes are according to WP:LOP.

Thank You Very Much :) --HappyInGeneral 13:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally arbitration is about user behavior, not edit content. If you would like to propose some edits, discuss on the article talk page, and if you are in agreement, use {{edit protected}} to ask an admin to make the changes. If you can not get agreement on the talk page, the editors could instead try a request for 3rd opinion or a request for comment to get the views of other editors. Thatcher131 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I'll move this on the discussion page, wait for some time, if nobody replies then can I put the {{edit protected}} template? How much time should I wait? This is a Biography and so it should fall under speedy handling, correct? What do you think? --HappyInGeneral 15:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added note to the talk page, see here Talk:Li_Hongzhi --HappyInGeneral 15:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is from JSW663[1]: "There is no way one side's views should be portrayed at the start of the article at the total expense of the other. Placing all those FG pictures at the start is pre-determining readers' opinions. Once again have you forgotten about WP:NPOV?" It's about this image: [2].

I have a question about this. Is there a valid reason to move the image somewhere that is less visible after they could not delete it, [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] since I pointed out that is wikipedia vandalism to do that?

I mean, is it really wrong to place sourced information on wikipedia? Is it ok to say that this is NPOV because it might pre-determining readers' opinions, even though it's very well sourced?

I would like a clear answer to this from somebody who is an Administrator and Neutral to the Falun Gong issue. If this is not the appropriate place to ask, please point out where should I ask this question? --HappyInGeneral 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think for sure it leads opinions right at the top. i just reckon it is more professional to put it in a different spot. when things get running again i think a photo gallery at the end would be appropriate. video documentation of the "alleged" persecution should go there as well. we can sort those things out like copyright etc., for now i dont think it is appropriate to put this pic right at the top. just my two cents.--Asdfg12345 18:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was asking a neutral Administrator, preferably one who is in ArbCom on this case. For an article to be professional, first there must be consensus, which I guess will be reached in the mediation. However until then the wikipedia policies of not blanking sourced information should apply. I really don't think that is OK to use texts like: "Pre-determining readers' opinions" to justify the removal of a well sourced material, in the absence of any other mediation. Still I wanted to get a confirmation from an administrator if any if this assumption of mine is accepted within the wikipedia spirit. --HappyInGeneral 09:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think this question is valid because what is going on right now on the Suppression of Falun Gong page is basically a revert war[9] and I know and agree that revert warring is not good, but still an encyclopedia should be informative especially when it comes about things of high importance, and I think that persecution, torture and killing are of high importance, for a party to try to hide this I think it's not OK. --HappyInGeneral 09:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks have past since posting this question. Please help me clear up on how is the most correct to move forward on this. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 03:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is obvious to me that the image belongs in the article, in an appropriate place, there is no consensus on that point by the arbitration committee. Most likely it will be avoided as a content question. Fred Bauder 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors have rejected this picture placed in the intro by FG-practitioner-editors. I don’t object to the inclusion of this picture but it should not be placed in the intro. In trying to reach a compromise with FG-practitioner-editors I created a section call “Abuses against Falun Gong practitioners” and placed this picture there. But HappyInGeneral, one of the FG-practitioner-editors deleted this section and moved the picture back to the intro, thus starting a round of revert wars.[10] --Samuel Luo 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might remember this version of the page [11] which was deleted: [12]. Abusively and repeatedly [13].

So excuse me if I doubt your honesty regarding this issue. Also please answer the following questions:

1. Is the information well sourced?
2. Is the information relevant?
3. Do we have consensus on that page?

--HappyInGeneral 20:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: This is an open question, for more then a month now, addressed to the neutral administrators who are arbitrating this case. As you might notice, two of you proposed, in the last couple of days that I should be put on revert parole, for the restores that I made after I placed this unanswered question.

So far, I have only seen administrators turning their backs on my questions and critics insisting on their version. I mean I do understand that administrators are volunteers and thus not paid, but still I feel that a dialog would be helpful. --HappyInGeneral 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]