Jump to content

User talk:Penwhale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CineWorld (talk | contribs) at 03:25, 21 March 2007 (→okay). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archived Info:
/Archive1, archived Jun 30, 2005
/Archive2, archived Jul 23, 2006
/Archive3 archives up to Feb 25, 2007

PLEASE NOTE: If you stumbled here from other languages' version of wiki, please link to the related article so I might better answer your question. Thanks!
Also, please add new comments at bottom of the page, so I can find them.

Few things about the ArbCom request to Samuel

Hello, just a few thoughts about your note. This is not a dispute about Falun Gong. We have been embrawled in proctracted problems with those articles for a long time now, but in the end those are content issues and they can be worked out. In a general sense there is usually a semblance of progress. The biggest problem this whole time has been the lack of observance and enforcement of wikipedia's core principles. This has led to vicious editing cycles and a large amount of time spent unproductively. They are being enforced and closely observed now, so the problem is half-solved. In fact, things were just starting to move forward until Samuel blanked a whole lot of stuff and did not let anyone restore it. The reason for the request is because Samuel keeps doing this, has always done it, the articles can't make progress at all, and there is no other option. He has been banned before but does not seem to have changed. His is a really clear cut case of a disruptive editing, and it is not very much related to the subject of Falun Gong.

By the way, I don't know who vandalised Samuel's page. No one who practices and understands Falun Dafa would do something like that, that's for sure. It would be completely against the reason anyone would want to practice Falun Dafa in the first place. The whole point is to get rid of negative thoughts and behaviours, not to indulge them.

PS: my userpage has been vandalised, part of it including an embedded link being hiddenly redirected to Samuel's website, and I never thought to accuse anyone of doing that.--Asdfg12345 12:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I definitely agree with you that this is a topic that can really stir people up, but I disagree about the reasons. One thing I found somewhat incomprehensible a little a while ago was that some editors on wikipedia do not acknowledge that there is a persecution against Falun Gong in China. I don't know what you have read, but I will assume you are aware of it. Anyone reading about the persecution will be shocked at its utterly cruel and violent nature. Actually, just a caveat, some people do not seem to care. It seems strange these days that few are moved by human suffering. My comments just refer to people who still have a sense of justice and conscience, and who feel for human suffering. For them, this persecution is completely unjustified, brutal and horrendous, and they think it should stop. That stuff about the live organ harvesting is even worse than the rest, as bad as the rest is. So that is an issue I think that can get people's blood pumping. Some aspects of the teachings can be another source of contention. This usually stems from an incomplete or decontexualised exposure to them, though, and apart from a small minority it is not really a big deal and easily explainable. The basis of the whole thing is, as I mentioned, to get rid of all negative things inside oneself, bad desires, attachments, behaviours, and to try to live by Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance. There are also some qigong exercises. Sometimes I still get confused about why it is controversial, because in the end I think it boils down to something extremely simple. So I think those are the reasons it is controversial, not because of what Li Hongzhi has said about the CCP. I would say most of what he says is addressed to practitioners anyway, so if one were to take his words out of the context of that setting and out of context of the teachings as a whole, they would obviously be difficult to understand, and meanings may be ascribed to them which they do not reflect or truly contain. Again I think that is sort of a minor issue though, and most things to most people are able to be explained. Falun Gong is, in the end, completely harmless, and aims primarily at teaching people to be good. The persecution is also rather clear cut -- unjust, brutal and tragic. But maybe I am expressing a certain degree of naivity by not being able to fully understand the extent of the controversies. I can only tell it as I see it. By the way, I would not characterise Li Hongzhi as any kind of leader. Most practitioners have not met and will never meet him (I have not met him), and he has been clear about saying that there is not to be any kind organisation, structure, formalities, money etc.. Anyone can come and do the exercises and leave when they like, meet together to read the books, involve themselves in protests or things to stop the persecution -- in my experience everyone is doing things off their own back, paying for everything themselves, motivating themselves. Basically it is a set of free teachings, all the books and exercises are on the internet, anyone can learn them, read them, believe them, laugh at them, try them, or do what they like. Still, I have to say, it's controversial!--Asdfg12345 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can say I definitely are aware of is the CCP prosecution of FG (which has resulted in political Asylum into the US). - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 23:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I append this link, though there are many more one could peruse: http://www.faluninfo.net/torturemethods2/ --Asdfg12345 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asdfg12345, are you here to spread the pro-Falun Gong viewpoint again at the expense of the other? Is this what you call neutral and unbiased? As a NON-FG-practitioner myself, I cannot share the belief that Li Hongzhi knows best about everything, and that everything he or FG says is totally correct and that their evidence is indisputable, and the other camp is not. Please focus on editing rather than on spreading FG beliefs! Save the propaganda for another site, OK? Jsw663 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:: 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. Also note the FG matter is more political than purely humanitarian. Jsw663 14:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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 05:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Question

Hello Penwhale! I cannot say that anyone can really judge the outcome of the RfA process however, I would be more than happy to give you advice if you ever desire to go for the plunge :). The three mandatory questions of any RfA indicate the important areas that are going to be considered upon submission of your nomination. Though number one may seem like the most important (such as what you are going to do with the tools); in reality number two (your past contributions) and number three (your civility) are the biggest factors people weigh you on and consider you on. As much as eagerness and well-meaning is great, people reflect on your Wikipedia activity beforehand. I'm glad to see that you do make active contributions to Wikipedia space, which would make people comfortable knowing that you are aware of policy and would most likely be able to enact it well. People also like to be aware of your civility and your willingness for discussion; keeping a cool head in heated debates, utilizing article talk pages every now and then, and approaching users politely on their talk pages is much more assuring to see in an RfA candidate rather than someone who is prone to being hotheaded and unwilling to discuss anything. Another factor often considered is edit count/member time; in other words the amount of experience an editor has, how long an editor has been a member of the Wikipedia project, and their activity on a regular basis. I see edit count as being too penalized very often. Showing a favorable amount of contributions in a variety of areas as well as quality contributions alleviates some of the heavy "Editcountitis". Lastly those involved in RfAs look at some optional parameters such as amount of vandal fighting (which you probably already know), article expansion (such as bringing articles to FA or GA status), copyright tag knowledge (for image cases with disputed tags or incorrect tags), and deletion experience (such as being aware of articles that qualify under WP:CSD and being active in Articles for Deletion debates). For now I recommend you look back at the areas mentioned above and identify the places that you feel you could expand upon. I think its best if you give it another month or two and submit around May if you feel confident that you are have become balanced in most of those areas :). Also, don't stress on this process. The last thing you want to do is allow submitting an RfA distract you from building on your Wikipedia contributions or deprive yourself from still enjoying the site!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr

Thanks for cleaning up the template. I had left it for a few hours because I wasn't sure if Sam Sloan was trying to file an actual case there. I guess if he comes back and sees it's not on the RfAr page he'll try again. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks also for noting the current state of the voting on the BabyDweezil appeal RfAr. Given the issue you raised, let's leave this one to be de-listed by an arbitrator, if that's the outcome, rather than have a clerk do it. Regards, and thanks again for keeping an eye on these pages. Newyorkbrad 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AA case

Please review my fact finding regarding 60.242.13.87, 58.162.2.122, 219.88.95.90, and 211.30.143.246. I do not wish to definitively claim everything. What I wish for is that I see Wikipedia live up to my refutation of Vaknin. Assuming you agree with my conclusion, the next step would be to see if indeed JZ and FM were abusing their authority by instituting blocks against these users by applying an overly broad interpretation of the AA ruling--Otheus 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Otheus 16:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Required vote to accept in RfAr cases

Not sure if you saw it on my talk, but the reference I made to an arbitrator saying that in some circumstances, he might join a majority to accept was here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sulla RFM/RFAR

Thanks for the heads up, I'll be keeping an eye on it. ^demon[omg plz] 01:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UW future?

Hi Penwhale,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khukri 10:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy!

Good luck in school!Trampton 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

RE:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies

Just have a question as to what this message is about. I have already posted my comment on that page here. Wiki Raja 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ok. Anyways, if I want to apply for a clerk position too, how do I go about applying for that position? Wiki Raja 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ok then. Thanks. Wiki Raja 03:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too late to add a name to the list of involved parties? —JFD 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about reversions

Sorry about that, i've just started using popups and I am still getting used to how they work. Spork the Great 14:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk helper

Hi :-) Thanks for your work as an ArbCom clerk helper. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review is ready to close if you are going to do this one. Take care, FloNight 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to wait since it more than 24 hours since the first motion to close and there are no open issues. FloNight 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: The cases go at the top of the page here. [1] There are so many little details that almost every new person makes a few mistakes the first few times they do a close. Thanks again for your help. FloNight 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher fixed this. [2]. I did not see any thing else that I would change. Your notification of parties and people making comments seems fine. FloNight 19:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBrew

Cheers!

You deserve a round of thanks. DurovaCharge! 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luck of the draw you got such a complicated case to close, after the almost equally complicated opening yesterday. I think David Mestel drew a two-party case his first time out, but if, as I hope, you both stay involved, things should even out in the long run. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only... 5 hours until I get to go home and relax.. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

Look for my reply. Take care, FloNight 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay

i was told via jimbo in email that i can delete user talk page all I want. are you now trying to tell me i cannot? i am being harass by many person on here, over a content waring. i speak greek, you speak greek, we talk greek. read this okay you see true. warning not right, they read by jimbo who say they not right, i am block for because 1 admin like actress, is big fan, he block me because i not agree. is not right use block to win war.

69.132.199.100 03:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally user talk page deletion is frowned upon if you have warnings displayed. That is why that we're reverting them. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


1 admin is block me because they not liek my verified edits, they fan of actress so they block me to win. Search Shelby Young. she not in bridge to teribithia but they fight me on it and they think it fun. now other jump on, but it not real, she not on imdb.com, only a fan site saying she was in movie. she not movie credit so no credit page, whay so hard for understand people? 69.132.199.100 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


if want harass me i let jimbo deal you. he is doing job for removing person wikipedia. 69.132.199.100 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


you no want support me, you get block just like me were for argue with admin. reg nickname.CineWorld 03:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Penwhale&oldid=116698280"