User talk:Olaf Stephanos: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:56, 13 August 2009

Falun Gong

Replied on Talk:Falun Gong, go check. Colipon+(T) 06:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Olaf, I put a post as a general response to Tomananda on the Falun Gong discussion board Talk:Falun Gong. If you search my username you will find it. I hope you still intend to play an active role in that thing. I would like to discuss this with you via email if possible. We want to be responsible to Dafa - it might have been best for me to discuss with practitioners who are editing, on different understandings of what that means prior to posting. What you find there is what I think. I don't know how much time you have for this or what you think. I am in a way trying to join in now because it seems to me like Tomananda is making a good point, it is ongoing, and it is not being addressed comprehensively, but it needs to be. The issue is putting something together about - as Tomananda writes it - Fa-rectification, Li's role as exclusive saviour, people being weeded out when the Fa rectifies the human realm, and the other issue of homosexuality. I have mentioned that I can put some time into this at the moment, but on the other hand I don't want to impose myself in this process, particularly with the long history it has, and your contributions. Obviously I don't want to see Tomananda cobble something up that has a bad effect either. This is wikipedia, but it is also involving something this important. If you guys have it under control then it's easier for me not to start working on this, but of course as practitioners we all want what is best for Dafa. Maybe you already understand everything, just let me know your thoughts.--asdfg12345 Wednesday, 2006-08-23 T15:04 UTC

List of purported cults

The Communist Party of China a cult? Please, have some common sense. Political parties are not \"cults\", especially if the source comes from a purported cult itself.

Sorry to engage in this private discussion page, but it looks to me that this person who has posted this 2-liner is in need of more information about the CCP and the diffirent viewpoints about it. I suggest he checks out http://www.geocities.com/china_e_lobby/NineCommentaries.html , which contains links to the 9 chapters of the "9 Commentaries on the Communist Party" book from the internation Epoch Times media. 194.88.250.22 13:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should read the 9 commentaries. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 16:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Force-feeding

Hi. I noticed your edits regarding torture & Falun Gong, Perhaps you would be interested in expanding the force-feeding article. Dforest 16:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email Id

Friend, I would like to discuss the article with you over email... my email id is dilip_rajeev@msn.com -Dilip Rajeev

Revert War and Trying Not to Generalize About Practitioners

Thanks for you suggestion about avoiding generalized statements about practitioners in the discussion pages. I agree with you and will be mindfull of that type of courtesy. However, please allow me one generalized comment about FG practitioners: Over the years, I have had many conversations with practitioners in different cities of the United States, Canada and Spain. In most (not all) of these conversations, I have been struck with one thing: the tendency of practitioners to engage heavily in apologetics about their beliefs.

Ironically, my first-hand experience with practitioners has enabled me to be more effective in keeping discussions "on topic" in these Wikipedia debates. I have come to recognize the common dodges. The ex-husband of a practitioner in the SF Bay area told me that his wife had many discussions with other practitioners on how to respond to questions or challenges from ordinary people. To me, that explains how a kind of universalized apologetics style has come about in the Falun Gong. It's almost like having a "company line"...but one which is bottom-up as well as top-down.

You have proven to be something of an exception in this regard. You haven't once resorted to obvious apologetics in this debate, and I appreciate that.

By the way, did you know I responded to your post in the Thanks Dilip! Your additional quotes from Li help support my case! discussion page? There's no urgent need for you to respond, but I was just wondering if you even noticed it given the volume of back-and-forth posts we are now experiencing.

--Tomananda 00:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable edit?

May I know why you found it necessary to make this edit regarding Samuel Luo's profession? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I expected. Wikipedia does not discriminate on basis of educational background. What his profession is has no bearing on his contributions nor the value of his contributions to Wikipedia. Please get that into your mind. Speaking of that, do you have a degree in religious studies? In Falun Gong (if they have one)? I suppose not, from your user page. Therefore, you are as professionally educated as he is on Falun Gong. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well then, disregarding the straw man, is it too much to ask that you not treat other contributors dismissively? No matter who's right and who's wrong, basic civility should be observed. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FLG and neigong

Hi Olaf. You'll be glad to know I don't intend it as an attack on FLG to mention Li's many statements of FLG's superiority, I just want to report what he has said. Such statements are important for people to know (and by no means unique to FLG) when evaluating a system. Personally, there is a distinction that I can make in observing someone who isn't a martial artist saying that the qigong he teaches is more effective than that the martial artists teach. I'm a Taijiquan teacher, and was a disciple of one of the families that created their style (my last Wu family teacher passed away last year). I was also lucky enough to study Chan and Pure Land Buddhism in Shanghai, Taiwan and Hong Kong and even "Hygienic" Taoism for a brief time in Wudangshan. While the Taijiquan I teach is for everyone, the neigong I've learned isn't for public consumption. My students have to earn it. It is a different thing, a more personal teacher/student issue, than a public religious approach because it still all boils down to the martial art for us. My student's religious studies (if they have any) aren't my business, their personal character and deportment are. The criterion I learned from my teachers is: why should I waste my time teaching something to someone who can't (yet) benefit from it? While basic external exercises are good for everyone, most people have something else to learn about learning itself before they can learn "silk reeling" or "marrow washing" Taiji Gong, or our techniques for healing others (after they've healed themselves, of course). It is mostly a safety issue for our very demanding martial training, though, apples and oranges with FLG. FLG doesn't have any martial component, so that is why it doesn't interest me, and why I get a chuckle out of Li Hongzhi saying what he does is more advanced than what Chinese martial artists (who are able to directly demonstrate their abilites, if they are any good) do. I don't say what I teach is better than FLG, Tantrism, Mormonism, video games or karate, just different! You seem, and have seemed all along, like a reasonable person so I hope this explanation helps! Cheers, --Fire Star 20:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Olaf Stephanos.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Olaf Stephanos.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

User:Dilip rajeev has nominated you for an admin. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Olaf Stephanos and accept of decline your nomination. Regards, Ton e 13:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

Hi Olaf, thanks for your agreement at the request for mediation. Normally, we would list people active in editing the article, but this case was a bit unusual since with the article being locked since June 27th none of us (except for myself at the mediator's request) have edited it in a long time. So, since we need 100% agreement from the list to be accepted I just listed people who have been active on the talk page in the last week so that everyone would have been up to date with the latest news. Fortunately, it was a large amount of editors. The reason I say this is that according to the rules the request isn't supposed to be modified, but I will add a note saying that I agree that you have been involved and should be on the list. --Fire Star 火星 19:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Informal mediator Wiki eZach| talk is preparing to move the Falun Gong mediation case to the Wikipedia:Arbcom. I have been asked to alert concerned (to the best of my knowledge) editors about this matter. Thank you. --Fire Star 火星 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on FLG talk page

Hi Olaf, just to let you know I finally saw your post on the FLG talk page, and have replied. Jsw663 16:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Bonjour Olaf. The mediation committee is apparently experiencing a management shakeup, as well as a backlog, and I'll guess that is why things have been stalled for such a long time. I plan to look into the situation a bit more in future, unfortunately, CovenantD's reason for leaving was a run-in with the (former?) head of the mediation committee, so I'm inclined to go slowly. Also, I'm a party to the mediation, so I have to avoid the appearance of trying to influence the committee. On a related note, I can't ethically unptotect the FLG article myself, since I have edited it in the recent past. Regards, --Fire Star 火星 17:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong mediation

Hello, I'm sorry it's been awhile, but I recently agreed to mediate that case. I don't know if it's a stale issue, so it would be good if a few of you let me know whether or not mediation is still needed. Since there are so many of you, I'm going to assume that all of you agree to me mediating until and unless I am told otherwise. I'm also going to assume public mediation is fine, unless someone asks for private mediation, or I come to think private mediation might be better. I would, however, appreciate it if you just said something there to let me know if you are still around. Also, assuming you are still interested in mediation, please watchlist the page if you haven't already. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed three-strike rule

Hi Olaf! I've proposed a three-strike rule regarding editors' behavior on the discussion page of the Falun Gong Wiki entry. I hope you can voice your opinion in that section (and agree/disagree to it), thanks! Jsw663 18:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf welcome back. I just read your discussion with Tom and I agree to the principle. It troubles me to see that you are adding material that are not sourced and clearly serves a POV stand, for example, the 2nd paragraph of the intro that I deleted. I also do not believe the article should quote Julia at the beginning so heavily, she is no expert on the issue.

You should also know that in you absence your fellow practitioners have raised the standards for sources. Quoting directly from FG websites and the Times or Wall street journal is no longer good enough for them. They have repeatedly removing material quoting these sources on Li Hongzhi and Teachings of the FG pages. --Samuel Luo 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I pointed out some practitioners have repeatedly removing material directly sourced to FG websites and major US media. I don’t know what is qualified any more, it seems that some practitioners, not you, is against anything that does not meet their standards. --Samuel Luo 22:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said: “Could we all agree that, from this point on, with the exception of self-evident truths like "Falun Gong is suppressed in China", we should always provide a source that complies with Wikipedia standards? Therefore, if someone wants to say something like "the suppression of the movement has gained more attention in the Western media than the movement itself, whose legitimacy (independent of the Chinese government's claims) has been seriously questioned upon by academics and religious experts" (from Suppression of Falun Gong), such a statement calls for removal in case it doesn't refer to any verifiable source.”

This is what I agree to, however, I do not believe adding pictures will do any good for these articles. Amnesty is of course a creditable source, so is FG websites and US major media. --Samuel Luo 22:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I agree with you. If other practitioners are as reasonable as you are we would not have these silly revert wars. If you can get them to agree to not attack those sources, I would not challenge the inclusion of pictures. Pictures like that should not be place on the top of the page, you should find a more appropriate place for it. --Samuel Luo 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf, I have stated my objections in BOTH the sections in which you have placed your rules - the one with 11, and the one with 15. Please read both before accusing me of not considering your proposals seriously. You can view the edit history for proof on the FG talk page. Jsw663 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asdfg12345 you have already removed sourced material. I hope you understand that your unilateral edits show no respect for other editors and Wiki policies. This page has been rewritten in the last two days by Falun Gong practitioner editors; it is troubling that these edits convey obvious pro-Falun Gong POV. What is more troubling is that the Tiananmen Square self-immolation section has been moved to a different page. To prevent future revert wars we must work together, that means when you (pro-FG-editors) want to remove existing material you must talk to editors from the other side. To show my desire for co-operation, I am not going to do any reverts and I hope you can show your good faith by restoring the Tiananmen Square Self-immolation section. --Samuel Luo 20:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration statement length limitation

Thank you for your contribution to discussion of a pending case on the Requests for arbitration page. However, it is requested that opening statements on whether or not a case is accepted should not exceed approximately 500 words. Your statement appears to be over that limit. Could you kindly edit your statement to reduce its size to 500 words or less. If you do not do this within 24 hours, an arbitrator or clerk may edit or remove your statement. Your cooperation will be appreciated by the arbitrators and by me as an arbitration clerk. Please be assured that if the case is accepted, you will have an opportunity to present a more detailed statement and evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 01:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Olaf, apologies for confusing you with Andres18. I've edited my ArbCom statement / FG talk page statement accordingly. But I still disapprove of your action in bringing the ArbCom case because I don't think sufficient mediation (dispute resolution) has been done. Justifying a further ban based on previous bans is a little weak. Also taking a case to ArbCom just for a 3rd opinion is really not appropriate. Note how Tomananda never brought a case against Omido even though they could have - what makes you think that we should be more strict with Samuel than with users like Omido, apart from past record?

Anyway just to let you know that I am merely objecting on insufficient grounds to bring an ArbCom case. If the arbitrators think otherwise, then I may speak in favor of your case on one condition - that Samuel won't change his editing behavior (i.e. wholesale reversions instead of partial reversions). But once that condition is no longer fulfilled, I would recommend dropping the ArbCom case, since the Mediation by Armedblowfish was constructive, wouldn't you agree? Jsw663 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf, I strongly suggest you retract the accusation you made against Fire Star wilfully neglecting her administrator duties and breaching WPs on the FG discussion page. Your inflammatory attitude does you no credit, especially in an ArbCom case. Jsw663 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several clear cut instances spring to my mind straight away, Jsw. It is not a secret, nor an accusation. I could find them in five minutes, but I do not think we should be going down that road -- I do not support making too much of this, and I think we should be looking toward the future instead of dwelling on the past. This ArbCom case should serve as a wake up call to the editors involved in this project, get everyone on the right track, and finally, identify and deal with those who are not willing to change their editing behaviour. I will say it again, all Samuel needs to do is undo his edits on the Suppression page, very clearly promise that he will not do that kind of thing again, and I will not have any more to complain about. I am sure Olaf and the others feel the same way. I want to contribute to these articles properly, and Samuel has made that practically impossible. If force is the only thing that will make him change, then so be it. But it is not too late now, and I think he should be clever about this and adapt to the new circumstances.--Asdfg12345 17:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the question should be, IF Samuel promises to do the above and does it, will the pro-FG editors be willing to take on a similar strict oath? I cannot say that your edits even after your renouncing of the POV statement that they are entirely 'neutral'. And more importantly, IF Samuel does it, will Olaf drop the Arbitration case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jsw663 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you 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 05:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf, although the unregistered users cannot be proven to be anti- or pro-FG because I don't have the requisite technology or information to determine for sure, there is little reason why a CPC agent would want to call themselves Communist dogs, or say that they are 'stupid Chinese' who can't be more like a Westerner, do you?

As for the evidence length, there is a 1000 word limit (see top of Evidence page for the rule). Yours is over 1500 words. Please just pick a few notable examples rather than give an avalanche of evidence - it is the points that matter here, not the quantity. Jsw663 17:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are just 'random hooligans', then why do they disproportionately target anti-FGers, and all accuse them of being Communist or CPC dogs? This sounds more like a harassing tactic engaged by Falun Gong practitioners. The only evidence of anti-FG activity was Asdfg's link being changed, and I have presented that evidence as well in my assertions. Have I really presented any side as 'pitiable' when I'm just presenting what has happened and recorded and not disputed that it happened by yourself, i.e. facts?

PS I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories on as regular a basis as you are implying or want readers to think (e.g. CPC members doing that to make you look bad) because by that logic, everything can be a conspiracy, e.g. Li Hongzhi secretly being a CPC agent who is just uniting dissidents to know who to target for the CPC. I know you've said that you don't believe this to be the case, but you made the statement anyway, so I have replied to that accordingly. (It is necessary because some people actually believes this conspiracy theory stuff far too regularly)

PPS I think you also must make assertions in your evidence, i.e. points.Jsw663 18:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a bystander point of view, regarding the few PAs on SL's talk page (etc), unless a CU confirms that they did it to themselves, then there's no reason to think they did it to themselves. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 07:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between 'no reason' to think that and 'no proof' to think that. Jsw663 15:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment on Olaf's ArbCom Evidence - Keep your response within the guidelines for ArbCom Evidence in general. It's hard to resist the temptation to argue against accusations which you feel are untrue; however, remember the Evidence page is not for FG discussion.

And since you are such a fan of quoting policies and guidelines, here's one from the top of the ArbCom Evidence page itself - "Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful. As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format." Please edit your evidence statement accordingly. To ensure a balance, I have also e-mailed Sam regarding his evidence. This way I can only claim to be more balanced and even-handed in treatment of both sides, but I won't have any delusions about neutrality in a case as controversial as this. Jsw663 12:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in response to your response to my post above, it doesn't necessarily only take a clerk or Arbitrator to do the moving of FG discussion to the Evidence talk page. You can do it yourself, since it is your own section, but of course this will be a positive, voluntary move by yourself - your choice in the end. (This is not the same as Covenant D's point and my 'counter-rebuttal'.) Jsw663 13:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf, your arbitration evidence is unacceptably long, still. Even users like Samuel have taken steps to shorten his evidence yet you have made no effort to shorten yours. Please be more concise. Summarizing your allegations against Samuel is much more effective, especially if you do it by points. Try to do it by assertion, then followed by examples, e.g. Sam altered / misquoted, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4. This makes the matter much clearer for arbitrators. The length of your post, or number of alleged violations will do your side no more credit than if you arranged your evidence against the anti-FG side by point. After all, effectiveness counts for more - quality over quantity. If you can cut it down its present length (around 1500 words even if you exclude links) by at least 25%, that should be a step forward. Jsw663 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arbitration evidence

Thank you for submitting your evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Evidence. In general, the arbitrators have requested that evidence presentations be limited to an overall limit of about 1000 words. To the extent possible, as a clerk of the committee, could we ask you to shorten your statement to this length. Thank you for anything you are able to do in this regard as I would not want for an arbitrator to decide that your comments are overlength. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: New Tang Dynasty TV; Psion Revo; Cults and governments; Wu Guanzheng; Christelijke Hogeschool Windesheim; Zhang Shuqi; Srivatsa; Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God; So Lo Pun; Buddhist Association of China; Modula-3; Four Great Inventions of ancient China; Ian Denis Johnson; China Party for Public Interest; Wilmer Valderrama; Li Changchun; Special school (Netherlands); Lü Gong; Gong Ruina

Cleanup: International Churches of Christ; Terrorism in Pakistan; ASUS
Merge: Central People's Government; Sukyo Mahikari; China Daily Hong Kong Edition
Add Sources: Leading small group; Dalarna University College; Self-immolation
Wikify: Drum circle; Becoming Madame Mao; Luancheng
Expand: Military history of China; Cultural views of suicide; Religious cosmology

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 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.

--Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 19:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.
Mcconn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
Samuel Luo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.
Tomananda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.
Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edit

This edit is grossly inappropriate. Epoch Times view regarding the CCP is no more reliable than The People's Daily's view on Falun Gong. That the Arbitration Committee did not impose restrictions on you for biased editing should not be regarded as license for engaging in it. The second round is not likely to nearly as lenient. Fred Bauder 14:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Falun Gong is labeled as a cult there, should it be removed from that list as well? Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not notice that the edit was made over a year ago. Fred Bauder 13:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Li Hongzhi

On my watchlist. Thanks for the reminder. Evilclown93 20:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR query

Hi Olaf. I have responded on my userpage. Unfortunately you were unfortunate to be reverting a yet to be discovered long term sock of Sam. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection of Falun Gong

What happened is that Samuel created a load of sockpuppets (I think I tagged four today (erk!)), and now he's unleashing them. I thought three days might put him off; I'm just trying a new way to combat this. Also, there's 10 socks that need to be dealt with. I'll notify the protecting admin about it. Cheers! Evilclown93 00:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'ts open again, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cultivating better

Hi Olaf... on a personal note, I think what you're doing is brave, but I think it also becomes pretty tedious at times. Cultivate more patience, keep a righteous mind and do away with the sarcasm that pops up now and then. Cultivating is not easy, and everyone can see how you're doing through your words. From practitioner to practitioner: be more strickt with yourself on this forum, it's important.81.164.171.10 19:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Wouter[reply]

SSP

Other than interest in Falun gong, can you provide diffs that show similarity to Samual Luo? List them on the SSP case. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FG: Some points

Here are some points, in response to yours, which you may have missed in the busy goings-on on the FG talk page:

I don't see anything wrong with the NYT, Times, Guardian articles, nor do I consider them "bad journalism". I'm fed up to the back teeth of FG apologists (and the FG propaganda machine) who try to pooh-pooh or discredit FG critics, or label everything anti-FG as "CCP propaganda". Fundamentally, the said articles are performing arts reviews, and are thus brief descriptions of the act supplemented by critical opinions of the columinists. What's wrong with Shen Yun is in some ways similar to Malboro sponsoring the Grand Prix and having their own clothing line (Marlboro Classics) - they are trying to advertise their cause by sailing a path of lesser resistance. But this is where the similarities end: by not announcing that the act is rooted in FG message and mysticism, and dressing it up as Chinese culture, it earns the disdain of reviewers and the audience alike. The columnists were doing their job well enough, and indicated their principal disappointment with the act as 'not being as advertised'. The same negative sentiments surrounds FG practitioners taking part in New Years or other parades masquerading as "Chinese martial arts demonstrations", then FG starts blaming city politicians for kowtowing to Beijing. The fact of the matter is really very simple: People do not like being fooled, and this back-door approach to getting its message across really gets people's backs up.
Olaf, please can you point out exactly where Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on torture, has stated that "organs were harvested in Sujiatun." I don't believe he ever made such an allegation, although he may have passed on an enquiry based on FG's allegations.
Also adding for good measure: You have side-stepped the issue of what the policy says: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute". It would be misleading to mince criticism in the mass media with defense from scholarly texts, because that would not reflect what public opinion is. Unless and except where the mass-media world has picked up on and share the beliefs of the academic world, the two should be kept clearly segregated so as not to misrepresent.

Ohconfucius (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them reflect what this magical "public opinion" is, by my estimate. I didn't know that was their function, or how that could be quantified. I think wikipedia should be neutral, and also high quality, and that we should be stringent in our editing methodology. I seems that there should be a general leaning toward prizing academic texts, from WP:RS:

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science."

I don't think sources are so much the greatest difficulties, but having editors adopt a measured, balanced, and neutral approach to this subject. Already there are strong attempts to pass the whole article through the prism of empiricism, which would completely neglect the Chinese context and the most central elements to the whole thing. Personal attacks and recriminations have also been flying around, which is totally out of line. Anyway, I think we should move through the article section by section, starting with the introduction. I'll really struggle to understand why the persecution wouldn't be in the introduction. I also think the introduction should be quite bland, or we are going to have a situation where points are rebutted with counter-points. (Sorry to invade this conversation.) --Asdfg12345 06:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting talk page revisions

You can let me know which revision you want to delete and I can do that. Or, you might want to look at WP:OVERSIGHT and WP:RFO. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Academic views on Falun Gong

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colipon's sandbox

Moved from Talk:Falun Gong.

---

For your information, behind the scenes User:Colipon is preparing an arbitration enforcement case against me.

User:Colipon/My Stuff/Sandbox

He would like to see a topic ban or complete block. I must say that he employs quite interesting tactics, such as:

presenting diffs like this as evidence of "disruptive editing" (for more information, see my diff that followed five minutes later and is not listed by him at all).
he thinks that a sentence written by Asdfg12345 is my "original research" [1] (and fails to tell that mentioning this discrepancy between the sources was approved on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [2]).
he claims that I have "modified" words, when I merely reverted changes made by PCPP [3] [4] (and he certainly doesn't link to discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard concerning Rick Ross).
according to him, it's "clear POV editing" to mention in the article on Jiang Zemin that "following the ban of the [Falun Gong] group, the police had also began [...] imprisoning Falun Gong practitioners to detention centers and labor camps and torturing many of them to death [...]" (adding 17 words into a sentence that already existed – and it's still there, nobody has ever removed it!)
as my "most serious POV edit in the last month", he offers this; he says "there was no consensus on the talk page regarding putting up such an edit", even though no consensus is needed per WP:BRD; and most interestingly of all, he fails to mention that I have discussed this wording, not tried to enforce it, have agreed to removing all the references to the court decisions, and have even spoken on behalf of Singer's inclusion as a significant minority viewpoint here.
he says that my argument concerning Wikipedia policies, reliable sources, and due weight [5] is "a form of very direct advocacy on wikipedia, which is prohibited according to the arbitration".
in his view, when I stopped Simonm223 from removing reliably sourced material (from Danny Schechter and Telegraph) while calling some of his removals "justified" [6] and trying to engage him in discussion without success, my "edits reflected clear POV editing" that apparently deserves a ban, if not a complete block.
when he quoted my satirical comment on this talk page ("The face of ~~your~~ ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose", a response I wrote to Mrund who called me "the single most hostile Wikipedia contributor it's been my misfortune to come across either on the Swedish or the English site"), he left out my strikeout of the word "your" (as I recognised that I was being impolite and didn't want to target Mrund's persona).
originally, he finds my comment "I merely proved through direct quotes that your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil" humorous, as intended ("haha. I like it. :)" [7]), but now uses it as evidence that I am "attempting to discredit him and attacking his character".
when I turn Mrund's insinuation of pro-FLG editors being similar to banned scientologists, and Colipon's comment "After reading the archives and history here it is a little naive to go on believing that if we keep this group of Pro-FLG users on this page, that it will be possible to improve it. Therefore my opinion is that a "wholesale ban" is more than necessary" [8], into full-blown satire by beginning my reply with a link to a humorous picture that is so overboard that it's clearly a joke, he takes the whole sentence out of context and even claims it is a response to something different, namely "to the commentary from a wide range of editors that the Falun Gong article is very biased and poorly written".

Good luck with your arbitration enforcement case, Colipon. I feel incriminated. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't really trying to be sneaky. If he were, he would have done it offline in a MS Word document and then copy/paste it directly into the enforcement page. BTW, he notified me too, on my talk page.--Edward130603 (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sneaky" or not. What shocks me is the extent of distortions, lies and mis-characterizations in these "arguments". Engineered to deceive and slander - thats all I can say about them. Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is slander or not, I'm sure administrators are fully capable to judge for themselves. Once this arbitration case is up and running users will have more than enough room to "defend" their actions.

Also, I'm glad you have pointed it out on this page. I will welcome any editors who agree with my arbitration draft to go and help me edit it and insert more diffs. I certainly cannot do this alone.

In addition, I agree with Edward. The sandbox is just a temporary location. Saying that this is somehow "behind the scenes" is just ridiculous. If it's behind the scenes I could have just done it in Microsoft Word or Notepad. Colipon+(Talk) 20:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether for good or ill, there is no just reason to criticize someone for making an effort to see that existing rules and regulations are observed. Whether anyone disagrees with his actions is another matter. Nor is there any real reason to think that anyone has any duty to notify anyone of a request for arbitration enforcement before the request is in fact filed. In all honesty, personally, I cannot see how this thread is even remotely relevant to the content of the article, and have to seriously wonder on what basis it was ever started here, as I am aware of nothing in the WP:TPG indicating such threads are considered even appropriate. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with John Carter. A full defense of this arbitration enforcement case can easily be done when the case is put up. Olaf can also choose to file an arbitration of his own against me and other editors. I really wouldn't mind. Colipon+(Talk) 21:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about "making an effort to see that existing rules and regulations are observed". It's plain to see. If you're uncomfortable with having it here, I will move this thread to my talk page in a while. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf, for your own sake, you should probably avoid the lengthy "point-by-point" rebuttals and extremely lengthy essays to prove a point. It will save you a lot of time. They don't seem to be doing much. Again, I remind you, that if you believe I am carrying on this campaign of slander against you or Falun Gong, please just report me. Colipon+(Talk) 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to write an encyclopedia. Good day to you, Colipon. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an arbitration enforcement case

Greetings, Olaf. I have filed an arbitration enforcement case here. This is just to notify you. Best, -Colipon+(Talk) 07:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at WP:AE, you have been topic banned from Falun Gong and related articles for a period of six months. As I commented there, I strongly suggest you use the time to experience other areas of Wikipedia, learn how to write for the enemy and focus on interacting with other editors in a calm and civil manner. If after the ban expires you continue to become hostile during content disputes, its likely that the ban will be re-applied. Shell ^babelfish 16:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to concerned parties. However, I will try to seek a remedy, as I don't feel this sanction is justified. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olaf. I am going to help to defend you! --FalunGongDisciple

Please just go away. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Aren't you also trying to help Falun Gong on Wikipedia?--FalunGongDisciple (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me the other people who are with us? I am looking forward to working with you all.--FalunGongDisciple (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 15:48, 13 August 2009 edit FalunGongDisciple (talk \| contribs) 33 edits →‎I have filed an arbitration enforcement case ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:56, 13 August 2009 edit undo FalunGongDisciple (talk \| contribs) 33 edits →‎I have filed an arbitration enforcement case Next edit →
Line 333:		Line 333:

	::::::Why? Aren't you also trying to help Falun Gong on Wikipedia?--[[User:FalunGongDisciple\|FalunGongDisciple]] ([[User talk:FalunGongDisciple\|talk]]) 15:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)		::::::Why? Aren't you also trying to help Falun Gong on Wikipedia?--[[User:FalunGongDisciple\|FalunGongDisciple]] ([[User talk:FalunGongDisciple\|talk]]) 15:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

			Can you tell me the other people who are with us? I am looking forward to working with you all.--[[User:FalunGongDisciple\|FalunGongDisciple]] ([[User talk:FalunGongDisciple\|talk]]) 15:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)