User talk:Samuel Luo

Welcome!

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Falun Gong page

Removing an entire section of an article is considered to be page-blanking vandalism. If you persist in this behavior, I will alert an administrator. Wikipedia is about consensus. It is not up to one person to remove material he or she does not like. Jeff Fenstermacher 23:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

FUCK U COCKSUCKER

Hey, lighten up Jeff. It's not always vandalism to remove a section of an article. I just did the very same thing myself. [1] What matters is the purpose of the removal. I moved an unsourced claim to talk. (I know it's a bit confusing, since Luo himself seems to be the source. Jump into the discussion at Talk:Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong if you really want to get involved. --Uncle Ed 19:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "creating a section where it does not belong is a form of vandalism." This is incorrect. It is only your opinion this does not belong. It cannot be removed on one person's say alone. If you persist, I will ask an administrator to block your account.Jeff Fenstermacher 23:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jeff Fenstermacher 23:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Pilot|guy 23:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong

I have blocked both you and User:Jeff Fenstermacher for an hour for violating WP:3RR. I have made it a short block in the hope that you will both cool down before your blocks expire. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Falun Gong was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 19:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong pics

A few pics is fine IMHO. Better than a huge block of text. CovenantD 23:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

For an article this size, one per section wouldn't be too much IMHO. Of course that just means the article's too large. Wanna help work on breaking it down into separate articles and summarizing for the main one? CovenantD 00:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

FLG

Hi. I'm afraid the idea of having two articles won't fly. I took a day off because I was bit frustrated myself. I hope in a day or two it will settle down again. The next thing we can do if it doesn't is request page protection. I'd protect it myself, but I've done a lot of editing on it. Hang in there! --Fire Star 04:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Falun Dafa

Dear Friend, I really dont know why you keep deleting relevant and factual material from the Falun Dafa page. Please think about it isnt the information critical in bringing to light the terrible atrocities being commited against people like you and me? Could we be true to our own conscience if we knowingly try to cover that up? Why would anybody want to support the persecution by covering up all the truth? They say that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

All I am requesting you to do is to be true to your own conscience. Thank you. Dilip rajeev 14:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk

Samuel. you mentioned that you want to keep reverting unless someone stops you. ok. I would not get a war with you. I will try to invite a mediator /admin to check who is doing vandalism. Fnhddzs 00:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Idea of Falun Gong page

It is our common hope to end the revert war. There has to be end to the persecution of Falun Gong too. Each day we watch the verifiable death number increases, practitioners in China are dying each day. And that may just be a tip of iceberg.

I have said we don't intend simply deleting. Regarding the new page [2], I have come up ideas of putting a paragraph of critism for each paragraph of non-critism and shorten the "health research" part. Dilip has said he can delete the "awards" part. Does that sound better? I go back to the old page [3], I noticed that most critism parts concentrated in one section. And other parts (ethics, foreign views) actually contain critism. So I think my new idea is fair. I will try to edit a sample page with my new idea for you to check. Fnhddzs 15:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

SAMUEL HAS A LITTLE PENIS

Also, we have to admit that not all critism has a right base. For example, those based on unfactual things, based on misunderstanding, based on personal website. Again, we have to be neutral and balanced. But we have to be factual. We can not pursue the balance just for the sake of balance. That will create false things with actual inbalance. Fnhddzs 15:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The deaths of Falun Gong members are the responsibility and fault of Falun Gong. Does the government persecute murderers by imprisoning them? No, because murder is not a religion. Nor is Falun Gong. Falun Gong are a cult, are murderers, and a terrorist organisation. Phanatical 18:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Phanatical I don't understand why you left me this message. Is this your response to one of my edits? The FAlun Gong is a cult, I have no doubt about that. However I don't think practitioners are murderers and the Falun gong is not a terrorist organisation. --Samuel Luo 05:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I made this point in regards to your reference of "persecution" against Falun Gong. The term "persecution" means the immoral oppression of one group by another, and the actions of the Chinese Government can therefore not be considered "persecution". Falun Gong practitioners ARE murderers, as evidenced by the hundreds of cases of relatives and friends murdered by Falun Gong practitioners for their opposition to Falun Gong, or in some cases for having a wheel of law spinning the "evil" way. They are a terrorist organisation as evidenced by cases including the previously mentioned murders, the hijacking of a television satellite, sending of anthrax-laced packages, threatening of medical practitioners among many other activities. Phanatical 10:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies of Falun Gong page

Would you explain on the talk page why you removed three paragraphs? I'm not saying you were right or wrong to do so, I'm just asking you to share your reasons with the rest of us. CovenantD 02:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I'm willing to accept any edit that is backed up by a good explanation, sound logic and/or solid references. It's the unexplained ones that usually cause problems. Now if anybody challenges I can pull up all of the deletions and they can be considered in context. CovenantD 18:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:Dilip rajeev just violated the 3RR rule

I need to see all four reverts given to me in link form. Your browser's time is different from mine (I set mine to Wikimedia server time). Also, if Dilip violated 3RR I will decide how much time if any he gets. I don't "need" to block him for 24... blocks are preventative, not punitive. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong edits

You need to discuss major edits in more detail on the talk page. I'm reverting your changes to the intro until such time as agreement is reached in discussion. CovenantD 17:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, once again I'm going to urge you to participate on the talk page more. There's several outstanding discussions about the intro that you haven't joined (1st and 2nd paragraph). Why don't you put your revised suggestion for the third paragraph on the talk page so we can discuss it? CovenantD 19:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think our messages crossed. See my suggestions above. You might also want to see the message I left for Dilip on his page. CovenantD 19:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. CovenantD 19:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a reflection on you at all. Dilip objected to them, I looked, there were edits that we hadn't discussed, so I reverted back to the last version I thought we had consensus on until the dispute is resolved. I didn't want to go all the way back to the frozen version, hoping that we could keep some of the progress. That seemed possible with the 3rd paragraph but not the first. Please, don't take it personally. CovenantD 22:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I wont do private deals with you, I will only follow the wikipedia policies. The NY times is a verifiable source that meets wiki standards and so the figure will stay. Dilip rajeev 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong

Hi Samuel,

I see that you can still edit the Falun Gong talk page. I did not figure out how to do it, since it is still blocked.

Could you please put the following regarding the vandalism in there for me? Thanks. Here it goes:

"I think i figured out what happened. The vandalism basicly only contained personal insults against users who are obviously a bit critical regarding Falun Gong. The vandalism occurred only on the Falun Gong talk page and some related user pages, and after the talk page was blocked the vandalism also immedeatly seeized (which is strange because he could have easily continued on the user pages or the still unprotected article page, which also should be a way more interesting target).

Also on the German Wikipedia this kind of vandalism basicly never occurred, because ussually the reason for vandalism is people forcibly trying to get their point of view into an article... talk pages are not interresting to them.

So I think whoever did this, did not actually want to vandalize anything or insult anybody, but just continued to vandalize the talk page so as to get the talk page blocked.

Why would he want to do this? Because as I said before the goal of vandalism is basicly always to forcibly influence article pages. If the talk page is blocked it will limit the number of people who can discuss the Falun Gong article to Administrators, and currently there don't seem to be many Falun Gong pactitioner among Wikipedia Administrators. Now since Falun gong practitioners could no longer discuss the topic, they could only directly change the article. But any change they made, was immeadiatly kicked out, saying that it was not discussed on the talk page.

So now it looked as though Falun Gong practitioners where vandalising the article page, and since whoever vandalized the talk page only insulted users critical of Falun Gong, it even looked as though they might be the vandals.

And I belive this is exactly what the vandal wanted to achieve.--Hoerth 12:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)"

Is it so hard to believe that a Falun Gong practitioner could be vandalising Wikipedia? They're willing to commit murder, vandalising Wikipedia is nothing if they feel it's in their interests. Phanatical 15:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

biography

Hi, Samuel. As of discussion yesterday. [4]. nobody said anything about adding edits from the same biography you guys like so much. Please do not delete it. Thanks. Fnhddzs 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

-- Миборовский 20:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Chen's reply

Hi Samuel, here's the link. [5]

You're welcome. I posted a short paragraph in the FLG discussion page. Feel free to ask questions either there or on my talk page. --Yenchin 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:Fnhddzs on FG page again violated the 3RR rules

The earliest 2 links don't look like reverts to me, and least not the same ones as the last 2. -- Миборовский 23:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. -- Миборовский 00:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

FUCK MIBOVROSKY AND SAMUEL LUO..FIRESTART TOO..U LUITTL \E BITCHES

Your website

It's against Wikipedia policy for you to add your own website. Please read this guide on External Links, specifically the paragraph at the bottom of the section "Links to normally avoid." That's where I got my edit summary, word for word, when I removed it earlier and just a while ago from the Li Hongzhi article.

“ Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. ”

Also see number 11 under that section for how to go about it. - CovenantD 01:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not post my website on wikipedia. This website was created in 2003, at the time it was possibly the only critical site of the FG. Obviously some editors find it informative so they posted it here long before I started editing. Old timers like firestar and Miborovsky would know. --Samuel Luo 05:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to normally avoid

1. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)
2. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
3. Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.
4. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
5. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
6. Sites that require payment to view the relevant content.
7. Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community (for example, sites that only work with a specific brand of browser).
8. Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content unless (1) it is the official site of the subject of the article, (2) the article is about those media, or (3) the site is being cited as a reference.
9. Foreign-language sites, unless it is the official site of the subject of the article or it contains visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables. (See WP:MOS-L for further information on this guideline.)
10. Bookstore sites, instead use the "ISBN" linking format which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
11. A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.
12. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.

If it weren't already linked, I'd have added Samuel's site. His article is one of a number of resources my organisation uses here in Australia in regards to awareness about Falun Gong.Phanatical 12:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And that's fine. The point is that Samuel can't add Samuel's website. CovenantD 13:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Phanatical Thanks for your support. --Samuel Luo 19:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD is absolutely correct here. Mr. Luo, I am going to converse with CovenantD. We will provide an adequate timeline for removing your website from the page. No conflict of interest should be available on Wikipedia. No hard feelings, ok? 71.106.174.113 03:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Phanatical has indicated that s/he would add it anyway, I feel no need to take part in removing it from the Falun Gong article. Any attempts by this anon IP will be met with resistance. CovenantD 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus vote

Don't get me wrong. I asked clearly is this a consensus vote[6]. , I did not ask about deadline! It is outrageous you are doing so! Fnhddzs 05:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No vandalism, no revert war

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please respect the agreement that it is a consensus vote[7]. Do not revert since it is not a consensus vote. Thanks. Fnhddzs 06:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You ARE cheating! The first half has nothing to do with MY question. I was asking

Can I assume this is a consensus vote? Fnhddzs 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs 06:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong

Hello Samuel. What I suggest is that you await the result of the straw poll on the opening paragraph (Samuel's second suggestion) and use that as the consensus for the opening paragraph. As I explained on User:Fnhddzs's page, the straw poll, in my opinion, overrides any previously thought of consensus. Give it a couple of days for the straw poll to complete and for all heads to cool, then I'll unprotect and we can go on the basis of the results of the poll. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 07:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

my 1st paragraph edits

I see the two as very different things. I waited one day (from 01:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) to 01:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)) to give people time to comment on the proposed addition by Fnhddzs, which consisted of three words. Tomananda was the only one who did, and he was okay with the addition. I don't see two hours as being sufficient time on a decision this large, especially if it's going to become the subject of revert war. CovenantD 14:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of those three words happened here. CovenantD 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• It is clear now that CovenantD said it is a consensus vote. He said both you and me are right. I don't owe you an apology. Fnhddzs 18:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I also made it clear that I was referring specifically to the deadline in that instance, but that in general everything is done by consensus, per Wikipedia policy. CovenantD 18:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel. I am sorry that people wrote that. But please, how do you know they are practitioners? Did they claim they are practitioners? Even if they claim they are, those behavoirs are really bad and do not qualify the standard. I think you could escalate the issue to admins if this continues to happen. Fnhddzs 00:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Samuel. By the way, I did a search for you. the IP of 164.67.44.91 [8] is from UCLA[9]. Fnhddzs 00:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs, although I am strongly against the FG, I have respect for most practitioners. As you know my parents are both practitioners and over the years I have met many of their fellow cultivators who I believe are good people. But that doesn’t meant there isn’t any bad actor in the FG. This person in his response implies that he is one and I believe that. Anyway, thanks for doing the research for me, I located the address of that IP after his recent attack using the same tool. :-) --Samuel Luo 04:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)