User talk:Unicornblood2018

August 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Lin Zexu has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Lin Zexu was changed by Unicornblood2018 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.94982 on 2018-08-26T03:30:23+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unicornblood2018, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Unicornblood2018! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Friendly Notice

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Leugen9001 (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unicornblood2018 ~ Falun Gong Talk

I want to make one thing clear. I wrote my discussion piece on Falun Gong talk to help improve the article by opening people's constricted mentalities to the topic.

First thing I believe nobody should try to edit wiki with info that is not backed by a reliable source. I just assumed everyone on wiki should have known that as it was obvious.

I agree that people who violate that should be banned and have their content removed, particularly if what they put in is just their biased opinion with nothing of substance to back it.

LI feel politics have corrupted people's integrity. And hence the sole purpose of my original discussion on Falun Gong Talks. Below is just my honest opinion to give perspective. If you feel I have lied or made mistakes in stating certain facts, feel free to reply.

My endgame is for people after reading my thread to go research and find their own reliable sources. And add it to Wikipedia.

I do not advise people to simply put their opinions on wiki without a source to back it. In fact majority of my sources used in the discussion is literally from falun gong leader Li himself.

I was trying to tell people not to let politics to corrupt their writing. And this is the sole and only purpose of my writing below.

Feel free to read and comment a reply if you want. I am open to honest suggestions of improvement but like I said, the below writing is just to make a point.

After reading, follow the rules of Wikipedia by using reliable sources to back what you put in but take my discussion as a metaphor to break the corrupting influence of political inhibition to report and publish responsibly on the wiki topic.

When I read the wiki page on Falun Gong. It did not seem like a high quality wiki page.

What I meant by that is that I feel politics have corrupted people's integrity. And hence the sole purpose of my original discussion on Falun Gong Talks.

And Wikipedia is first about the truth. And not merely repeating after what falun gong wants people to hear about them.

What I mean by that is no secret that Falun Gong members commonly tell others that the Chinese government banned Falun Gong because Li had more followers than the Communist party (100 million compared with 60-70 million).

But that is unlikely for two reasons. First, scholars agree that the number of Falun Gong adherents was between 2 to 10 million, not 100 million (see Bruseker, 2000). Second, there were equally popular Qi Gong groups in China which were not banned.

Yet on the very intro of wiki, it reiterate that "quoted" claim by stating that the government banned them because they were jealous of their size and spirituality.

What it didn't say was that Falun gong members had infiltrated the Communist party to overthrow the government.That issue is not disputed. Nor did it mention that Li had made teaching to encourage others to avoid modern medicine which was irresponsible and wrong,and the government had a good reason to criticise him for that.

Even after he was banned. He continued to keep writing that illnesses are caused by karma, and that by taking medicines or getting medical help one presses the karma back into the body. The sign of a true practitioner is to refuse medicine or medical care (Li, 1998b; 1998c; 1999; 2001a; 2003b).

That is also not disputed. I can go on about Li telling people of the apocapse and that he was the world's saviour to his followers, etc

All these reasons were why Li was banned from China yet despite being decent solid reasons behind his ban, with a lot of reliable sources to back them. The intro just claims that the banning "only" reasons was that China was jealous of their size and independance. I find that to be suspiciously inhibited from giving the chinese government a gift of the truth and not willing to be neutral.

When I felt pressured to conform to throwing integrity away for some political bs. I refused and wrote my honest opinion of how people should stop inhibiting themselves and if your "worst enemy" happens to be right about something. Not admitting it is plain childish tho I can understand the sentiment.

I wrote that opinion to shake people off that shackle of

Edit ~ saved only because my last writing was erased when I accidentally refreshed the page as I'm using my mobile . Do not want that to happen so if you're seeing this. The page is currently being written and be done within a hour.

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intro for Falun gong seems poor and why can't I edit?

Wikipedia is first about the truth. And not about merely repeating what one party tells others to write about them.

What I mean by we can all agree that Falun Gong members commonly tell others that the Chinese government banned Falun Gong because Li had more followers than the Communist party (100 million compared with 60-70 million).

But that is unlikely for two reasons.

First, scholars agree that the number of Falun Gong adherents was between 2 to 10 million, not 100 million (see Bruseker, 2000). Second, there were equally popular Qi Gong groups in China which were not banned.

Yet on the very intro of wiki, it reiterate that common "quoted" claim by stating that the government banned them because they were jealous of their size and spirituality.

What it didn't say was that Falun gong members had infiltrated the Communist party to overthrow the government.

That issue is not disputed.

Nor did it mention that Li had made teaching to encourage others to avoid modern medicine which was irresponsible and wrong,and the government had a good reason to criticise him for that.

For the record, even after he was banned. He continued to keep writing that "illnesses are caused by karma, and that by taking medicines or getting medical help one presses the karma back into the body. The sign of a true practitioner is to refuse medicine or medical care"

Sources are below and are from his official publications.

(Li, 1998b; 1998c; 1999; 2001a; 2003b).

That is also not disputed. I can go on about about other reason.

All these reasons were why Li was banned from China yet despite being decent strong reasons behind his ban, with a lot of reliable sources to back them.

The intro just claims that the banning "only" reasons was that China was jealous of their size and independance. I find that to be suspiciously inhibited from giving the chinese government a gift of the truth and not willing to be neutral.

_____________

Note ~ I was going to add this to the "poltical inhibition discussion" but i think I may have been blocked. If there is a dispute against me, I would want to hear reasons and be inclined to resolving it civilly. And always open to sincere critical feedback. Unicornblood2018 (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm fully and painfully aware that many of my writings are long and messy and even repeats itself sometimes. I'm not usually like that. But I received an email a few nights ago from wiki and during the past few days have been travelling long distances on a train back and forth with barely food and sleep for that past days. Typing while bored and hungry on a long ass train ride using an old phone is not the best way to contribute to wiki. Not a great excuse but I would try to in the future, use an actual desktop computer plus word processor inside a house to write future writings. I promise you will see a vast improvement from my earliest writings. Unicornblood2018 (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Nobody right now is making an accusation of malicious behaviour against you. I took this to the NPOV Noticeboard only in order to see what the community thought. I'll try to ensure fairness for all sides. --Leugen9001 (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule saying that negative information about Falun Gong cannot be added. It's just that because of the controversial nature of the topic, I think that it might be wise to try to seek consensus before making big changes.--Leugen9001 (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's going to delete the talkpage, and the histories are required to be kept to satisfy Wikipedia's copyright scheme. However, article talkpages aren't soapboxes for pro or con views, and the FG talkpage has seen significant recent disruption by editors who seem to believe that Wikipedia is a platform for advocacy. Please stick to specific discussions involving measures to improve the article, using reliable sources. Denuncations and complaints about an article subject are not appropriate on any talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mate, I was getting to that. You deleted me waay too quickly. LESS THAN 2 MINUTES AFTER I ADDED THE FIRST SET OF PARAGRAPHS. I was going to add that the portal should not be deleted similarly to the talk page. By making a point that this talk page showed what needs to be changed. And the portal here is the first thing that needs to be changed and is incredibly important as it allows awareness and context to be accessed easily.

The portal is important as it allows unfamiliar editors a quick study of Falun Gong. And the talk page can make sure the true background is written on it.

That was my entire argument on why the portal shouldn't be deleted and also why the talk page must be protected. Unicornblood2018 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, talkpages aren't for advocacy or presentation of personal views. Abuse of talkpages in that manner is disruptive and can lead to editing restrictions, and there has been an editor posting walls of text consisting of their personal views, who has been disruptive. There are plenty of other places on the internet for complaints and advocacy. Separately, the portal business involves a widespread debate about all portals, not just this subject. Acroterion (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Read TheBlueCanoe rationale for censoring information on the talk labelled "Considerations for lede section"..it consists of nothing but own personal views and claiming subtle gaslighting statements that only the ccp ever calls it a cult and secretly does not believe it is a cult. How else am i supposed to say he is distorting facts in order to justify censoring.

Me saying that is wrong, and explaining that the government gave clear information criticising Li claims on aliens etc, is sufficient enough to describe and prove they undeniably see it as a cult. After Li got kicked out of china, he continued to talk about aliens in the west. He described one of the aliens looking just like a human but a nose made of bone.

And look at Marvin 2009. He uses tactics that are simply wrong. He removed an entire paragraph with a reasoning that's very weak at best. And does not justify removing the entire body.

Li claiming to have supernatural powers and teach it to other people.. Is a pretty standard recognised hallmark of a typical cult. If you need a source to also tell you that a person claiming to be a God with superpowers and that person convincing people to believe him, is a cult. That's unnecessary and simply creating artificial barriers which i called it out. That's all.

How else does one ever tell him that he is undermining the page by deleting real information with an exploitive excuse.

Those are just 2. There are a long history that span back years of censoring with bad excuses. And how does one fix that, exactly?

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Falun Gong, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post advocacy: stick to concrete suggestions for article improvement, backed up by sourcing. Your dislike of the organization isn't a free pass to post extensive personal analysis. Attacking other editors is a fast road to loss of editing privileges. Removal of personal views and soapboxing is not censorship - talkpages are only for specific suggestions concerning article improvement. Wikipedia isn't an outlet for free speech, it's an encyclopedia.I suggest that you read WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:FREESPEECH. Acroterion (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read other opposing editors's input. It is nothing but soapboxing and personal attacks on China government despite the issue should ONLY be more on whether the information are indeed facts and not about politics which is my biggest point.

Removal of personal views and soapboxing is not censorship

Those are not personal views. For one. They are backed by literally Li himself, writing papers in the west that explained why modern medicine was actually destroying people rather than helping them. And a true practitioner will abstain from modern medicine.

Ironically Those are personal views of Li and neither me or the one who inpputed that info, would make that our own personal views.. It was simply li's personal views documented into Wikipedia that was removed using a beuacratic invalid excuse by Marvin 2005. I protested that censoring to protect the page from inappropriate censoring. And improve it to be an article where information is not hidden via personal bias.

Judge for yourself

And they aren't strictly a personal analysis within a bubble. Saying that it was wrong for Li to claim he was chosen by an immortal and trained with them in his youth. To master supernatural powers and actually promise others he can teach them to do the same.

And call that dishonest is being an editor with morals who refuses to lie and hide li's dishonesty via lies of ommission. I am not advocating that we call Li as dishonest. I am advocating the reason not to censor his clearly dishonest background because he shouldn't be protected by editors who simply are using the talk box to distort information. And they get away with it using logical fallacies and agended comments.

For example, one of the first replies i got were blue canoe who stated

"Given how prolific Li is in his writings and public lectures, we could never hope to describe everything he has ever written." TheBlueCanoe 00:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That does not mean we become deprived of our freedom of speech to state that Li talked about evil aliens who landed their spaceships on our planet a century ago in his Time interview and about 2 billion year old nuclear reactors in Africa, that he was chosen by an immortal being who taught him supernatural powers, like telepathy etc . And most importantly Li did in fact publish papers whilst in America about advocating against modern medicine in favor for his teachings instead. Heather Kavan outlined the sources and they were both written and published by Li himself without any doubts.

If those facts are correct.. You are depriving freedom of speech on me to advocate that we simply should not censor that information. And editors calling me blatant accusations of ccp apologist does not give them the right to bully me on asking them why censoring real information that is both significant and relevant.. They have only used political hate motivations to justify it.

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Falun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may actually succeed in deleting me completely and banning me. Because I am relatively a nube when it comes to Wikipedia beuacracy.. And they delete me because i was unaware of a trivial rule. But I have nothing that I feel guilty for.. I bought awareness to people using inappropriate reasons on censoring information.

I properly explained why falun gong is a cult and never truly advocated on ever calling it a cult on the actual wiki article..

But simply for other editors like blue canoe, Marvin 2005, etc to not to censor the evidence and information that proves it is a cult. As the reasons given to censor them was not at all justifiable.

That's my freedom of speech. As this is a large topic, i may have excessively talked too much but none of what i wrote, makes me feel like I am cheating Wikipedia.. I want to help Wikipedia.

And even if the board cherrypick on small reasons to ban me. I am emboldened by the fact that you can delete information about fg from Wikipedia but not forever from the outside western world.

Li claimed he was chosen by an immortal at age 12 quoted by Western journalism. Li wrote papers advocating against modern medicine that were published in America.. You can't hide real facts forever ~ A man who claims to have superpowers and can teach it to others, is a liar. And no decent board would object to me bringing light to true information and use convenient excuses to rid my freedom of speech. That's what i believe wholly. Unicornblood2018 (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to help Wikipedia, bring authoritative sources, and leave your own opinions out of it. Stop posting walls of text about what you think, stop accusing other editors of censorship, and abide by WIkipedia's policies on reliable sourcing, no original research, neutral point of view and [[WP:V|verifiability. Everything must be sourced to reliable published sources. Talkpages aren't fora for opinions, and Wikipedia isn't a forum for personal expression or for free speech. You are expected to listen to other editors and to abide by site policies. Clogging up talkpages with walls of text containing no sources and a lot of opinions obstructs the work of the encyclopedia. If you can't abide by those policies, there are plenty of other places on the internet to make your case. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But I already gave my sources last year in Full and with in depth explanation. In the top chapter that is now been just moved to another place by a bot, effectively hiding it from public awareness. 🤨

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_41

I already stated Heather Kavan journalistic piece who personally read and Cited Li's work.

"He teaches that illnesses are caused by karma, and that by taking medicines or getting medical help one presses the karma back into the body. The sign of a true practitioner is to refuse medicine or medical care (Li, 1998b; 1998c; 1999; 2001a; 2003b)."

Falun Gong in the media: What can we believe?

Heather Kavan Massey University ANZCA08 Conference, Power and Place, Wellington, July 2008

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Li, H. (1997). Falun Dafa: Lectures in the United States, pre-publishing version. Retrieved March 26, 2001, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/mgjf.htm

Li, H. (1998b). Essentials for further advancement: A Falun Gong practitioner’s guide. Retrieved Feb. 1, 2006, from http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz.htm

Li, H. (1998c). Falun Buddha Fa: Lecture at the first conference in North America, March 29-30, New York. Retrieved March 26, 2001, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/north- america.htm

Li, H. (1999). Falun Dafa lecture in Sydney. Retrieved April 7, 2005, from http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/xnjf1.htm

Li, H. (2001a). Falun Gong: Principles and exercises for perfect health and enlightenment. MA: Fair Winds Press.

Li, H. (2002). Touring North America to teach the Fa, March. Retrieved Feb. 12, 2005, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/na_lecture_tour.htm

Li, H. (2003a). Teaching the Fa during the 2003 Lantern festival, Feb. 15. Retrieved June 3, 2005, from http://www.faluncanada.net/library/english/ la2003/la2003_e.doc

Li, H. (2003b). Zhuan Falun: Turning the law wheel. Taiwan: Yih Chyun Corp.

Source of excerpt written by Heather Kavan can be currently downloaded as pdf from the Massey University link below.

https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Kavan_ANZCA08.pdf

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hey mate, you gave me the wrong page. The page you gave me os a case that was a decade ago. Please send me the correct link.

You gave me this link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong

IT is Incorrect. Case Opened on 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Give me my case url. If its a real case then i want to know it Acroterion

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why should politics inhibit us from reasonably heeding critical questions about Falun Gong?

MAJOR Notice

I want to make one thing clear. I wrote my discussion piece on Falun Gong talk to help improve the article by opening people's constricted mentalities to the topic.

I feel politics have corrupted people's integrity. And hence the sole and only purpose of my original discussion on Falun Gong Talks. Below is just my honest opinion to give perspective. If you feel I have lied or made mistakes in stating certain facts, feel free to reply.

My endgame is for people after reading my thread to go research and find their own reliable sources. And add it to Wikipedia. I do not advise people to simply put their opinions on wiki without a source to back it. In fact majority of my own sources used in the discussion is literally written from falun gong leader Li himself.

I was trying to tell people not to let politics to corrupt their writing. And this is the primary purpose of my writings below.

After reading, follow the rules of Wikipedia but take my discussion as a metaphor to break the corrupting influence of political inhibition which I feel is a significant problem and biased barrier.

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC) _______________[reply]

Leugen9001 had asked why "aliens" that he labels as "fringe" beliefs of falun gong, should be allowed on the wiki page and then proceeded to acknowledge that the info was still backed by a reliable source.

I wouldn't call aliens as non relevant fringe beliefs. They were conspiracies and dangers warned from the FG leader Li himself and he mentioned stories of aliens both in China and also again in a western interview. And they are still an interesting part of history in regards to FG. Wikipedia is supposed to include all relevant history.

I understand that truth can be twisted or alternatively hard to prove. And being responsible in editing Wikipedia is key to ensuring integrity of content.

But I ask you when the Falun gong leader Li claims that there is a dedicated heaven for every 'pure' races and that mixed race people are doomed in not being able to go to heaven.

____Have you ever questioned how he even came up with this concept of heaven?___

You never once seen it as reeking of sexual racism and deliberately against interracial relationships?

Or why he taught that mixed race people are to be punished by karma just for being born?

That he may just be another bigot with an agenda against race mixing as he after all pulled his own made concept of heaven out of thin air and legitimising it as his "spiritual law".

Question is for those, who can think for themselves, and answer honestly. And to boost needed awareness as most of us just assume that that concept was made a few centuries ago or should not be questioned in our minds. But our minds are free and nobody can prevent us from asking question to ourselves. Can't believe i have to say this but don't write questions or opinions on wiki. I meant ask to yourself in your own head lol.

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alot of close minded Conservatives are not uncommonly against interracial relationships and so a religious doctrine that dooms any mixed race offspring just seems like manipulative passive brainwashing to me, of the naive people that thinks that Li is the real deal in spirituality.

Of course that can be just be another crazy conspiracy theory. And it's irresponsible to write that on wiki if they are not backed or ambiguous.

So I will back my case from here on by first clearing ambiguity and changing the issue of biases into a non issue by using only Li's own words and writings.

____________

There are plenty of sources that have indicated that Li tried to basically encourage others in refusing modern medicine or listening to their doctors' advice if they became ill.

Why did he do that and why should he not be criticised for being irresponsible?

The government then ridiculed him for being irresponsible in 1999. That is not put on Wikipedia for some reason. Why?

My sources that back those facts that Li was advising against modern medicine, are literally written from Li himself.

(Li, 1998b; 1998c; 1999; 2001a

Aliens are more than some fringe belief. It reveals how willing Li is in trying to convince others that he is their "saviour".

Why should we not even question at all how he came up with aliens? For the record, I believe he made those stories up.

What reasonably caused Li to claim himself as an expert in actual aliens and why insist to others that somehow he knew all the conspiracies and dangers of these beings? Classic scaremongering or actual delusions?

Why should mere mentions about Li talking about aliens in a 1999 Times interview, be omitted from Wikipedia by Leugen9001? I feel there needs to be some consideration on how he managed to even come up with his concepts of heaven, harmful medical advice and warnings of aliens?

And by putting that story in, we allow readers to know some real history, and not be hidden from it.

Or do we shamelessly hold our tongues to avoid being seemingly insensitive to a religion which may just be an actual conman disguising his cult as a legitimate religion.

It's the classic moral loophole. A racist subtly spills hate and uses freedom of speech to protect himself. A living modern day person posing as a buddha uses freedom of religion to protect his cult. When has it been an issue to just say a racist is a racist and a conman is a conman when it's staring right in front of us.

Qigong was not invented by Li. That is an actual fact. Even the hand movements in falun gong came from Thai dancing.

All he added was his stories of aliens, his supernatural exploits, apocalyptic visions, his concept of heaven, teachings that lacked any scientific basis and suddenly it's a "legitimate" religion that sees Li as its saviour and his advice means more than others. Despite his advice is highly questionable.

__________

There are many reliable sources written by Li himself and those sources ironically exposes certain realities.

In one of them, Li tells his followers to deliberately lie to the public and to withhold information about the religion's "higher teachings" to the non falun gong public and instead to tell the "general" others that they are just an exercise group.

It would appear to me that it reduces the unneeded "heat" from the general public if majority were to discover them as an active religion that strongly preaches certain controversial beliefs and that it has an actual living leader today who actually created that religion that made him the "hero".

Again the official source to back that fact that Li instructs his followers to lie for his religion and help keep a low profile under the public's radar by claiming to just be an exercise group, came literally from Li himself.

Since that's pretty significant and is officially written by Li himself with no one disputing it. Why after all these years, that one thing has never been reported once on Wikipedia?

__________

"The Western media get most of their information about Falun Gong from press releases disseminated by the Rachlin media group. This group is essentially a Public Relations firm for Falun Gong, managed by Gail Rachlin, who is one of Li’s inner circle.

Journalists also get their stories from interviewing participants. However, Li forbids practitioners from talking about what he calls “high level things” to ordinary people, and instructs them to lie to those uninterested in spiritual matters (“tell them that we’re just doing exercises” [Li, 2002, p. 21]). Therefore spokespeople tend to be evasive about their beliefs, and resort to formulaic principles and repetitions of their slogan ‘truthfulness, compassion, forbearance’.

Moreover, Li sets the terms of the debate by directing members to get sympathy by telling listeners about the persecution, with the hidden intention of later turning them into converts (Li cited in Rahn, 2005; see also Li, 2002, 2003a).

Members do not see this strategy as deceptive: a Falun Gong spokesperson told me that by focusing on the persecution and not pushing their religion or leader, members were being inoffensive.

.....The Western media do not usually describe Falun Gong as a cult, because of pressure from Falun Gong, and members tell the media they are just an exercise group. However, as Wong and Liu (1999) observe, Falun Gong seems unusually proselytising for an exercise group. Also, on newcomers’ second or third visits they are given scriptures showing Li’s rejection of those who just do the exercises every day (usually Zhuan Falun, but see also Li, 1997; 1998b).

I noticed that newcomers never returned after they were given the reading material, except for one man who reappeared only to put the books on the table and rush out the door. When – six months into the fieldwork – a member told me that Falun Gong was not about doing the exercises at all, I was not surprised. She had already given me this information via Li’s writings. If the ambiguous – some might say deceptive – recruitment tactics make Falun Gong sound like a cult, we should look further at what exactly a cult is.....

..... If we employ these criteria, Falun Gong could be described as a cult. By his own account Li is the exclusive saviour of the world.

He teaches that members are superior to ordinary people, and they must relinquish “affection for kinsfolk, love between a man and a woman, an affection for parents, feelings, [and] friendship” (Li, 2003b, lecture 4, para. 3).

Also, Falun Gong activities take up large amounts of practitioners’ time each day. To be sure, practitioners are free to exit Falun Gong whenever they want, but this freedom is a physical reality, not a psychological one. As the Chinese members I met had no exposure to other spiritual paths, they believed the peace they experienced in meditation is only available through Falun Gong.

Moreover, if they are left behind in the apocalypse they will suffer horribly (Li, 2000a). (The date of this event is uncertain because Li can use his mystical powers to delay it, but participants were expecting it within the next 25 years.)

Heather Kavan

________

Which begs the question. What exactly are these higher teachings that needs to be hidden from the public? What kind of people would trust in those teachings and believe in the supernatural?

Also what kind of person goes around preaching truthfulness yet at the same time also hypocritically forbidding his followers to be completely truthful about his religion?

There are too many smoking guns that are not being addressed. And it's Wikipedia's actual purpose to expose these kinds of things by 'correctly' publishing available info that is backed by reliable sources aka from Li himself, yet after all these years, much are not covered on wiki.

_________ Wikipedia is about holistic truths. And not for "one sided" information if it supports a certain desired image by its most keen editors.

If the inconvenient facts are correct and not false and have my sources like the 1999 Times interview with Hongzhi, they should be included and not buried.

All my questions are not unreasonable to consider and my stance is that truth should not be censored cos of some political inhibition, and if it is indeed backed by solid sources.

My answer to the question from the editor Leugen9001 that they are not a fringe belief but the responsible spotlight that highlights blissfully ignored questions.

Like why the actual leader of the religion, would even make such questionable claims in the first place and why should they be legitimised as a religion as they are after all only a few decades old?

And why is an editor using Orwellian tactics by subtly stating neutral bias must equate to always seeing falun gong positively and nothing less than that and to not contradict their (wiki editors) created unofficial consensus (which would be questionable if a reliably backed source were to contradict them anyways), despite there are known truths that ring alarm bells?

Should I just go with "the program" and not ever question these things?

Not putting in Li's talks about aliens is just the perfect way to eliminate awareness from answering those critical questions.

Sources

Li, H. (1997). Falun Dafa: Lectures in the United States, pre-publishing version. Retrieved March 26, 2001, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/mgjf.htm

Li, H. (1998b). Essentials for further advancement: A Falun Gong practitioner’s guide. Retrieved Feb. 1, 2006, from http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz.htm

Li, H. (1998c). Falun Buddha Fa: Lecture at the first conference in North America, March 29-30, New York. Retrieved March 26, 2001, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/north- america.htm

Li, H. (1999). Falun Dafa lecture in Sydney. Retrieved April 7, 2005, from http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/xnjf1.htm

Li, H. (2001a). Falun Gong: Principles and exercises for perfect health and enlightenment. MA: Fair Winds Press.

Li, H. (2002). Touring North America to teach the Fa, March. Retrieved Feb. 12, 2005, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/na_lecture_tour.htm

Li, H. (2003a). Teaching the Fa during the 2003 Lantern festival, Feb. 15. Retrieved June 3, 2005, from http://www.faluncanada.net/library/english/ la2003/la2003_e.doc

Li, H. (2003b). Zhuan Falun: Turning the law wheel. Taiwan: Yih Chyun Corp.

Source of excerpt written by Heather Kavan can be currently downloaded as pdf from the Massey University link below.

https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Kavan_ANZCA08.pdf

~

this article is removed from talk page and moved to a url address that nobody really ever goes to.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_41 Unicornblood2018 (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting evidence of past people banned and silenced that goes back further than i realise

Keeping logs of censoring of information that shouldn't be censored if true and backed. Other users have complained from being edited out when they reveal true information about fg, in which includes reliable authoritative sources like times interview, a kiwi University study, and even Li's own publications.

Personally every time i discuss a topic specifically censoring on wiki, they refuse to discuss and their pattern seems to go off topic discussing the same rote rehashed speech about ccp. Like that is supposed to mean something except it has nothing to do with I Brought up to talk page. 😡 It is very hard to have a discussion when they keep doing that, yet i'm the one termed disruptive.

However i realised there's a history of banned users who were similar like me. A decade ago.

Their information or essence of the info is not put in the article. They were banned for "disruption" but if the other editors were genuinely interested in adding those information. Which btw are accurate and well backed. They would have already been in by now.

They're not.. Disruption is merely an opportunistic easy excuse.

Their reasons are purely political and reject not because the information is wrong, Insignificant nor lacks solid sources.. But because it reveals a reality they wish to hide. It's 2019 and they can't use inappropriate opportunistic excuses forever. They are not wiling to work with you to add correct information that makes them feel politically threatened.

They will fight you, use double standards and unwilling to meet you halfway. They first make it difficult for you by calling you a ccp apologist or Going off topic repeatedly to repeat their lines about the ccp despite you weren't remotely talking about that. They are not willing to add the information otherwise they'll engage meaningfully and seriously in deciding whether the information is factually correct and has a right to be added.

Instead they are politically involved and - the editors with political bias against China will want to ban you without offering a way to resolve it maturely despite they can.

If They are willing to discuss, I have all my information backed by solid evidence. And they are afraid of that. I have only made one edit 1 year ago and it was blocked for a flimsy reason.

~

The user who closed discussions quickly, deleted and hid my edits, gave me the link to an article that has previous banned users. From what i read from a few, they had no right to ban them just for wanting to tell facts about fg, in which they had solid backed sources for. This seems to be going on for over a decade at least from the looks of it. I'm not the only one.

~

Double standards of deleting one pov statement whilst allowing another's actual soapboxing in which I responded to directly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/894442351

And what gives a person a right to close a discussion right after adding his own soapbox on politics that has nothing to do with the topic on censoring that paragraph??

If I didn't know any better, I suspect Acroterion is Marvin 2009 because both users responded shortly after each other.

He knowingly showed clear bias and hypocricy. He ignored the soapbox about off topic going on politics but not when i replied directly to it using relevant arguments that Li talked about aliens which satisfies the simple definition of cult and ironically for the other person to not debate off topic politics, but instead whether something are facts or not.

~

You say "we just want to see China without Communist dictatorship," but at the same time you agressively prevent any edits which try to report this goal in order to preserve a false image of the Falung Gong. If you believe that is a justifiable goal, why can't you post some edits to reveal that part of Li's teachings? Or at least let editors like me have a go at it?

From user Tomananda Unicornblood2018 (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2,878 BYTES ADDED, 11 YEARS AGO There can be no justification for removing material sourced to major US media. you are trying to hide these material.

Samuel luo user

Li had a dialogue with Times reporter on May 10, 1999:

TIME: Are you a human being?

Li: You can think of me as a human being.

TIME:Are you from earth?

Li:I don't wish to talk about myself at a higher level. People wouldn't understand it. I am trying to save those people who can return to a high level and to a high moral level. Modern science does not understand this, so governments can do nothing. The only person in the entire world who knows this is myself alone.

TIME: In your book [Zhuan Falun] you talk about people levitating off the ground but you say that they should not show other people. Why is that?

Li: It is the same principle that Western gods in paradise should not be seen by ordinary mortals because they cannot understand its meaning.

TIME: Have you seen human beings levitate off the ground?

Li: I have known too many.

TIME: Can you describe any that you have known?

Li: David Copperfield. He can levitate and he did it during performances.

TIME: You have said that this type of qigong should not be used to cure illness. Why is that?

Li: Healing illnesses belongs to the lower level of qigong. A person with an illness cannot practice to a higher level. One has to purify one's body in order to have gong. Healing and fitness are for laying a foundation at a lower level of practice. [1]

TIME:Would you use qigong to cure an illness?

Li: I can do all of this, but I won't do it.

.. Goes on and on Unicornblood2018 (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user Laomei

Here's a source, a Falun Gong one as well: http://dawn.thot.net/fofg/whatis.html Q1: Is Falun Gong a religion? A: Falun Gong is not a religion. Li Hongzhi himself says it is not a religion http://www.newstatesman.com/200307140014 As for Master Li, his message is available in a torrent of video- and audiotapes, websites and books. He continues to preach that there are aliens on earth, that he is a being from a higher level and that his followers can develop X-ray vision. Falun Gong, he says, is not a religion - and indeed, it lacks the rituals that conventional religions feel required to provide.

Followers say it is not a religion http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/china/falun_gong.html Falun Gong, which translates to wheel of law, borrows from Buddhist and Taoist traditions. But follower and Canadian spokesperson for the group, Joel Chipkar, says it is not a religion, but a spiritual discipline that can improve physical and mental health.

Not my opinion at all here, it does not belong in the religion section period, for it is in fact not one. Laomei (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Unicornblood2018 (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate censoring culture and bullying by FG defensive

Marvin 2009 removed an entire paragraph using what i honestly recognise as merely beuacratical and invalid reasoning . I believe that biased censoring is a serious issue here and degrading the quality of this article due to its political nature.

I believe that a new dedicated section needs to be created to discus openly whether an information truly has a right to be deleted or not from the article.

One editor has last month inputted the following information.

- "However, despite arguements of such, Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult. For example, Li Hongzhi, the creator of Falun Gong, was classified as "possessing superhuman abilities and god-like insight" in his biography in 1993-94.[84]There are also reports over advocating refusal of normal medical treatments for not only the practitioner,[85], with accounts of relatives being persuaded not to use medical assistances as well."

Marvin 2009 wrote the following after deleting the paragraph in question.

- "Currently the page was just added a paragraph saying "Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult." However, this cannot be found at the provided 1st source. Is it an Original Research? The 2nd source is quoted from CCP mouthpiece media Xinhua, which obviously is biased on this topic. As such, the added content is not reasonable."

That reasoning is not valid simply for one because it deleted the entire second sentence using an excuse that the source given, didn't state it had multi qualities of a cult.. And deleted the entire third sentence because the second source was a ccp source. However that could have easily be appropriately re-edited to state that ccp were the ones making that report.

Regardless Li claiming to have supernatural powers and teach it to other people.. Is a pretty standard recognised hallmark of a typical cult. If you need a source to also tell you that a living person today claiming to be a God with superpowers and that person is convincing people to believe him, is a cult. That's unnecessary and simply creating artificial barriers

Cult are easily understood as a social group that's brainwashing its followers, in a way that are generally dishonest or harmful or them claiming their living leader as their saviour who has supernatural powers. The following are facts that are solid.. Can you prove they are fake?

- Li is a man who publicly claims to have supernatural powers that he learned in his youth from an Immortal, such as telepathy and can teach it to others.

- Li also published papers "in the west", telling people about why they should reject modern medicine when they are ill.

- A group that brainwashes people into believing a man has supernatural powers and tries to make others believe that Li knows more than medical professionals.

Those are the "numerous" qualities of a cult which btw is a word that most average person would not find hard to understand.

You don't need to have a source to back everything if it doesn't need it. And even then, you didn't have to delete it all..Could have edited it appropriately but that was not enough to appease certain editors agendas that their undesired yet correct and significant information, is to be censored and not to be discussed fairly.

~ I have been smeared a ccp apologist here. I'm not the one trying to hide information about fg. If they are incorrect or lies that i am trying to protect. I will accept my freedom of speech here to be ceased.. But I am advocating protecting information that are significant and true, from being deleted here. That is how I believe I am the among very few editors improving this article by bringing awareness to inappropriate censoring that has been ongoing for many years on this article.

I don't care about the politics. In fact, I find fg to be politicised more by china hawks with an agenda. Who uses politics to create a false image of falun gong. Via censoring real information which isn't artificial. If lt was, then clearly chinese government is behind that.

- The communists didn't make Li lie about his background, or push him to talk about aliens in times interviews, nor make him write papers telling followers why modern medicine is doing more harm than good.

The only editors with political agendas, are the ones who hide facts like Li claiming stories of aliens and why I originally became aware of such censoring.

Regardless if the fg leader indeed published those papers against modern medicine in the west. They should be recorded on Wikipedia..

If Li claims he mastered supernatural powers like telekinesis, telepathy, etc and those significant facts are correct. Then you have no right to remove facts from Wikipedia. I am not going to argue politics with editors but instead whether or not certain information are facts or not.

This section needs to be created and not blocked. And to be properly vetted. I will accept a ban if i am Protecting information that is untrue. But i suggest a ban for those who are vicious on doing whatever it takes to censor information that shouldn't be censured on the basis of freedom of information. -

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Unicornblood2018 (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Acroterion (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing, specifically posting enormous BATTLEGROUND rants to Talk:Falun Gong, as detailed at WP:ANI#Unicornblood2018.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Unicornblood2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Care to first be specific about a battleground case against me?

If there is one or 2 trivial amounts that are put on me by opportunistic editors who hate that i tell it as it is. Then i won't apologise. Because i am wronged.

But if you can show me where i clearly crossed the line skecifucay. I will apologise

However I've been constantly smeared ccp apologist by others, why are they not banned😅 regardless i want to know my battleground arguments used to ban me.

Me saying its wrong to censor information and giving sufficient reasoning, is not a battle ground.

Having others attack me first and then me reminding them that blatant accusations and questions of motives can go both ways, is not a battle ground.

Finding and pointing out flaws in logic is not a battle ground.

Telling people that they shouldn't delete information out of political biase and invalid reasoning however is a battle ground. But within reason. Trivial.

But maybe i missed something and deserved my ban fully.

Regardless please elaborate on the SPECIFICS please. And i will apologise to the offended if i believe i crossed the line.

~~ Edit ~ as for mooning the jury.. I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia editor etiquette. Just a farm boy from Campbeltown Australia.. I'm still learning the ropes on Wikipedia so cut me some slack..

I had notifications. Saw a talk page and treated it like one.I wasn't aware that you're not supposed to treat it as a talk page discussing my details. It's not like there were a warning or something to tell me that i'm. Not supposed to contribute.

So banning me because of my unfamiliarity of your customs is not the same as banning me for deliberately mooning the jury.. I was specifically TOLD by Administrator Who reported me it was a case with the arbitration committee who i assumed people all get to represent themselves.

Because that was what the user explicitly told me. That i had an arbitration case against me.. That is misleading to tell me i have an arbitration case open if this isn't one 🤨

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Acroterion#/talk/96

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Care to first be specific about a battleground case against me?

If there is one or 2 trivial amounts that are put on me by opportunistic editors who hate that i tell it as it is. Then i won't apologise. Because i am wronged. 

But if you can show me where i clearly crossed the line skecifucay. I will apologise



However I've been constantly smeared ccp apologist by others, why are they not banned😅 regardless i want to know my battleground arguments used to ban me.

Me saying its wrong to censor information and giving sufficient reasoning, is not a battle ground.

 Having others attack me first and then me reminding them that blatant accusations and questions of motives can go both ways, is not a battle ground.

Finding and pointing out flaws in logic is not a battle ground. 

Telling people that they shouldn't delete information out of political biase and invalid reasoning however is a battle ground. But within reason. Trivial. 

But maybe i missed something and deserved my ban fully. 

Regardless please elaborate on the SPECIFICS please. And i will apologise to the offended if i believe i crossed the line. 


~~
Edit ~ as for mooning the jury.. I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia editor etiquette. Just a farm boy from Campbeltown Australia.. I'm still learning the ropes on Wikipedia so cut me some slack..

I had notifications. Saw a talk page and treated it like one.I wasn't aware that you're not supposed to treat it as a talk page discussing my details. It's not like there were a warning or something to tell me that i'm. Not supposed to contribute. 

So banning me because of my unfamiliarity of your customs is not the same as banning me for deliberately mooning the jury.. I was specifically TOLD by Administrator Who reported me it was a case with the arbitration committee who i assumed people all get to represent themselves. 

Because that was what the user explicitly told me. That i had an arbitration case against me.. That is misleading to tell me i have an arbitration case open if this isn't one 🤨

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Acroterion#/talk/96



[[User:Unicornblood2018|Unicornblood2018]] ([[User talk:Unicornblood2018#top|talk]]) 17:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Care to first be specific about a battleground case against me?

If there is one or 2 trivial amounts that are put on me by opportunistic editors who hate that i tell it as it is. Then i won't apologise. Because i am wronged. 

But if you can show me where i clearly crossed the line skecifucay. I will apologise



However I've been constantly smeared ccp apologist by others, why are they not banned😅 regardless i want to know my battleground arguments used to ban me.

Me saying its wrong to censor information and giving sufficient reasoning, is not a battle ground.

 Having others attack me first and then me reminding them that blatant accusations and questions of motives can go both ways, is not a battle ground.

Finding and pointing out flaws in logic is not a battle ground. 

Telling people that they shouldn't delete information out of political biase and invalid reasoning however is a battle ground. But within reason. Trivial. 

But maybe i missed something and deserved my ban fully. 

Regardless please elaborate on the SPECIFICS please. And i will apologise to the offended if i believe i crossed the line. 


~~
Edit ~ as for mooning the jury.. I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia editor etiquette. Just a farm boy from Campbeltown Australia.. I'm still learning the ropes on Wikipedia so cut me some slack..

I had notifications. Saw a talk page and treated it like one.I wasn't aware that you're not supposed to treat it as a talk page discussing my details. It's not like there were a warning or something to tell me that i'm. Not supposed to contribute. 

So banning me because of my unfamiliarity of your customs is not the same as banning me for deliberately mooning the jury.. I was specifically TOLD by Administrator Who reported me it was a case with the arbitration committee who i assumed people all get to represent themselves. 

Because that was what the user explicitly told me. That i had an arbitration case against me.. That is misleading to tell me i have an arbitration case open if this isn't one 🤨

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Acroterion#/talk/96



[[User:Unicornblood2018|Unicornblood2018]] ([[User talk:Unicornblood2018#top|talk]]) 17:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Care to first be specific about a battleground case against me?

If there is one or 2 trivial amounts that are put on me by opportunistic editors who hate that i tell it as it is. Then i won't apologise. Because i am wronged. 

But if you can show me where i clearly crossed the line skecifucay. I will apologise



However I've been constantly smeared ccp apologist by others, why are they not banned😅 regardless i want to know my battleground arguments used to ban me.

Me saying its wrong to censor information and giving sufficient reasoning, is not a battle ground.

 Having others attack me first and then me reminding them that blatant accusations and questions of motives can go both ways, is not a battle ground.

Finding and pointing out flaws in logic is not a battle ground. 

Telling people that they shouldn't delete information out of political biase and invalid reasoning however is a battle ground. But within reason. Trivial. 

But maybe i missed something and deserved my ban fully. 

Regardless please elaborate on the SPECIFICS please. And i will apologise to the offended if i believe i crossed the line. 


~~
Edit ~ as for mooning the jury.. I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia editor etiquette. Just a farm boy from Campbeltown Australia.. I'm still learning the ropes on Wikipedia so cut me some slack..

I had notifications. Saw a talk page and treated it like one.I wasn't aware that you're not supposed to treat it as a talk page discussing my details. It's not like there were a warning or something to tell me that i'm. Not supposed to contribute. 

So banning me because of my unfamiliarity of your customs is not the same as banning me for deliberately mooning the jury.. I was specifically TOLD by Administrator Who reported me it was a case with the arbitration committee who i assumed people all get to represent themselves. 

Because that was what the user explicitly told me. That i had an arbitration case against me.. That is misleading to tell me i have an arbitration case open if this isn't one 🤨

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Acroterion#/talk/96



[[User:Unicornblood2018|Unicornblood2018]] ([[User talk:Unicornblood2018#top|talk]]) 17:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You need to re-read that arbitration notice again - it doesn't tell you that there's a case against you, but that the area you're editing is subject to sanctions, which may be enforced as a result of that arbitration case. Acroterion (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so basically was there an actual report against me😕, if not, why input it? Marvin 2009 blatantly called me a ccp apologist. That was uncalled for and i was upset that you deleted my reply to him. But left his alone despite he disparaged me and mocked my integrity.

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<moved from the top of the page>Correction

.. I was specifically TOLD by Administrator Who reported me it was a talk page with arbitration where I ASSUMED people all get to represent themselves. Is this not an arbitration where i'm Supposed to tell my side like everyone else? .

Because that was what the user explicitly told me. That i had an arbitration case against me..

That is misleading to tell me i have an arbitration case open if this isn't one 🤨

No, I told you that if you had a complaint about my actions to take it to ANI, not to arbitration. Your response on my talkpage convinced me that others needed to look at your conduct, so I brought it up at ANI. Your response there, continuing the behavior for which I warned you, resulted in your block. At least you've confirmed that the IP from Victoria was you. Acroterion (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lol well that's a surprise. I didn't know there was a campbelltown in Victoria until i looked it up. Nah man, Campbeltown, Sydney Australia and i never once denied my country nor background. I just got tired of the trivial fuss over "anonymous" ip address. News flash, we are all anonymous. I dom't know your first name nor the Japanese guy blocking me rn. I don't see the big deal behind the stigma of unregistered ip user.. Honestly i travel all the time so i rarely get the same ip address for very long so maybe i get the stigma. Tho Virtually anyone can make many email accounts. For all i know, you could have 6 wiki accounts. And i meant that as a friendly joke. Not as an attack 😜😂

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. It's best practice to log in - the use of pseudonyms can be confusing, as can IPs. That wasn't really a major issue, it was tolerably obvious. And yes, there's a NSW Campbelltown, I meant to refer to that one - the IP lookup gives NSW. Acroterion (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User Unicornblood2018's statement regarding "apologist" and the source from Samuel luo

Above, User Unicornblood2018 stated: "However I've been constantly smeared ccp apologist by others" and "Marvin 2009 blatantly called me a ccp apologist."

Here are some events occurred on FG talk page. IP user 120.17.227.48 (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC) attacked my reply to him as "apologist speech" by saying: "You're clearly deliberately diverting away from the topic that I highlighted and filling it with your biased fluff apologist speech , without discussing in depth what i mentioned prior."

Before and after that, IP user attacked me and other users as apologist for multiple times. For example, on April 25, the IP user said to me: "Your explanation and author are apologists grasping at straws here and maybe you shouldn't edit Wikipedia anymore as you are clearly biased..." --by 120.18.228.42 (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

On the same Falun Gong talk page, I also notice that the IP user frequently advocated for Chinese communist government, saying:

"Leugen9001 already appears to have ingrained political bias against the Chinese government and the reasons why he distorts the consensus inappropriately." "The chinese government had multiple different reasons why they disliked FALUN GONG." To only name a few.

In my comment on 27 April 20, I mentioned: "It is obvious that CCP apologist is passionate to negate and distort the basic persecution facts and promote CCP propaganda, including cult label, but this isn't a platform for anyone's lengthy Original Research expression. " where i did not specifically say the IP user is a CCP apologist. Plus, at that time I had no idea whose ID that IP belonged to. Since it seems that this word makes User:Unicornblood2018 unconformable, I will not use it in my future comments.

Searching the word "applogist" on the FG Talk page, today I notice that there are 6 searching results. Except for my one line as I listed above, which was not specifically saying about IP user, 4 results were from the IP user.

In addition, thanks User:Acroterion for introducing the Arbitration Committee's decision here. I read it through and found out that anti FG activist Mr. Samuel Luo was blocked for being disruptive to Wikipedia. I believe this shows the spirit of NPOV of Wikipedia.

For the 2nd topic, on this user talk page, today User:Unicornblood2018 referred one Samuel Luo source. Obviously it is not a Reliable Source. For improving the quality of the FG page, we should not rely on unreliable sources. The Deng & Fang source that User:Unicornblood2018 tried to add to the FG page previously was another example. According to Falun Gong in the United States: An ethnographic study, I understand that Deng and Fang's article was a kind of CCP related defaming operation.

BTW, to serve the purpose of being anti something, everything could be distorted and became "evidence" for being continuously anti something. Mr. Samuel Lou could be a negative lesson for us. Hope User:Unicornblood2018 will enjoy your life and have a happy spring. Marvin 2009 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although Wikipedia is not a court of law, I learned something (even if I don't always carry it over into practice) from my attorney mother which applies here; when you're winning, be quiet. Don't for a second mistake me for a Falun Gong sympathizer, I have absolutely no love for either them or what the Chinese government does to them. Your best bet is to keep working on improving the article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about neglecting context, mate your first reply made me insulted... 🙁If you want an apology, I admit that I actually could have been more professional but back then you literally quoted a china hawk, Ethan Gutmann and at the same time, stated he said other religions like Christianity and islam, etc are INDISTINGUISHABLE to Falungong.

There are so many things wrong with that as first, there's so many differences. The mainstream religions are practised for many centuries while falungong was just made in the last few decades. The Religions have been practised innocently with no living conman to influence it, whereas fg has a living author, leader, benefactor who talked about teaching telepathy, and aliens who wanted to use cloning tech to replace us all, etc are still benefitting financially from his deception like being trained by an immortal in supernatural powers in his youth.

Also falungong themselves insist they don't call themselves a religion. So he is not even speaking on behalf of fg pov. But that's another topic.

It is clearly not indistinguishable at so many levels and Ethan Gutmann was making a false Orwellian statement out of bias. In which he is clearly using fg to attack china, as politics come first to those guys. And the fact that you were familiar with a man whose career was predominantly hawkish towards china. And you gave me multiple paragraphs about ccp demonising fg and also apologists following the party lines. It seemed you were subtly and indirectly stating that I was ccp since technically I too was demonising fg, except i was TELLING truth about it and giving western sources, and not ccp sources.

You also directly asked me about the added paragraph as if accusing that I put that in. I honestly didn't but and fyi if I wanted to do that. I wouldn't use a ccp source for that paragraph but only western sources including Li's publications to back my added paragraphs. They're more solid.

Regardless your reply to me, were multiple paragraphs about ccp attacking fg.

Why give that to me?

If you want to attack me. Don't bring me paragraphs of ccp hating fg. Attack the factuality of the information i want added to the wiki article. Is it infactual? Simply assassinating my character by sending me paragraphs of ccp past demonising of fg, made me want to remind you that you are too politically minded. And should not let politics distort information or twist it. But i was peeved you kept writing to me on ccp and using weak logic from china hawks. So i wrote all that Afterwards but that was not of a mature adult.

And Ethan Gutmann was being a clear apologist of fg because of politics. He reminds me of Stephen bannon tbh on what he writes.

And most importantly, you stated that FG is not at all against "Race Mixing" simply because fg has mixed marriages?

To me, It appeared you were whitewashing it at best. Since falungong spiritual laws actually dooms every mixed race couple to be separated for eternity in their afterlife and also their offsprings are very doomed too.

So i did see you as an apologist because of that alone, but just as it is wrong for you to subtly plus blatantly regard me as an apologist. It is also wrong for me to call your logical fallacy whitewashing of "fg pure race policy" as an apologist for fg. Simply because that's not civilised behaviour.

So I am sorry mate and I will not call you an apologist publicly anymore as that is unprofessional. Unicornblood2018 (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]