User talk:Bradeos Graphon/Archive 9

I re-introduced the text that you had reverted on Tom Cruise. The reason why I re-wrote the intro initially is because the language was abusive. Intros of encyclopedial articles should summarize a person's life and/or achievement, and not necessarily highlight the negative instances of the personality's life which are temporary anyway. I hope this clarifies things for you and help you contribute to articles for which you will be commended and not vice versa....NeutralWriter

Last time, I promise.

I accidently recreated the deleted page Alberto garcia when changing the DB template from G1 to G4.

Sorry.

Logical2u 03:31, 5 November 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]

Hello Firestar. I want to inform you that a genuine cult has almost only promotional information on its Wikipedia page. The group is Dahn Yoga and its a criminal organization. Can you administer the page for the benefit of the unsuspecting public? Research the group and then check out its page and you will find a huge discrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.20.116.7 (talk • contribs)

User:Martialarm - a self-advertiser

Has been heading through martial arts articles and adding links to his website which sells the "martial arm", I've reverted a few changes (and I've seen others have been too). The user already had a message about innappropriate linking on his talk page, can you take some action? -- Medains 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why did you delete the Wikipedism page?

Eric.thomas 16:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help

Tomananda is unfairly blocked. He exhausted his 3 reverts on this page but he did not violate the 3RR rule. I contacted the admin that blocked him the following is his response. What is more unfair is that Olaf Stephanos who had just as many reverts on that page was not blocked. Could you help unblock Tomananda?--Yueyuen 20:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is not an entitlement to 3 reverts. Edit warring is prohibited. Also, the threshhold for information on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability; Wikipedia is not the place to reveal "the truth" except through reliable sources. Please also read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. —Centrx→talk • 07:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome

Hi, thanks for starting my talkpage. I am kind of a newbie here. I basically search for small mistakes, typos and vandalisms and try to correct them. I just wanted to thank you.

By the way, I see you are into martial arts. I find it a very interesting subject. You won't believe it, but I actually manufacture martial arts weapons in my free time and sell them in my country through "eBay"! (I didn't put the link here to avoid being considered a spammer). Well, anyways, I don't want to take up all the space here. Thanks for the help. You are welcomed in my talkpage. Regards, Daguerio 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets

I recently received a long series of comments on the talk page of my Leitai article from a user named Francombat. I don’t want to go into great detail about his comments; I’ll let the talk page do it for me. That having been said, I believe he has created a total of 3 different accounts to make it seem like more than one person was pissed off about my article. These accounts were created within days, hours, or even minutes of eachother. They are: Francombat, SheldonWongs and Youwannafight.

If you refer to their user pages, you will see that not a thing is written about them. I have left messages in their talk pages about how I think they are sock puppets of each other.

He’s even sunk so low as to write me insulting messages at my myspace account. Do you think you could look into this whole 3 accounts thing for me? I'm pretty sure that having multiple accounts and harassing another user (just to get his way) is against some sort of regulations. Please don’t think I’m some frail teenage boy, I served in the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne division, so I can put up with whatever this guy dishes out. But he is really starting to get on my nerves. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 09:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your help. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Now, he just put our discussion on a section "archive" in order to not display at the first time our discussion.

Whatever, we are presently working to write, registered copyright, and built new website with our Professional combat sport. After the work done, i'm gonna come back with a Wekipedia user skilled and expert in order to change the things featuring pictures, Video etc...from both Federation.

Thanks you for your careful attention

Francombat 08:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal to put large pages into archives. I received a notice that the discussion was getting to big at the top of the page. People can access it by clicking the link. I did not delete it. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 18:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Dahn Yoga Cult

I am worried that the page you edited is not sufficient enough regarding the numerous existing online resources about that renowned criminal organization, Dahn Yoga. These people ruin people's lives and ruin the reputation of qigong and martial arts lovers like yourself. They have committed numerous crimes and lie extensively about their criminal operation. Please do a better job of editing their page. Thank you, all of the victims of this cult will be mighty grateful towards you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.207.18.65 (talk • contribs)

They do seem to be a dodgy group. You'll have to trust me that the article is as close to a condemnation as you are likely to get on Wikipedia, where we have to let the sources do the talking, not us. Cheers, --Fire Star 火星 03:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm introducing myself to you. My name is Franco Richard also known as Francombat, I'm a French Canadian-American actor and the World Kuoshu Lei Tai heavyweight Champion since 2002. I'm also the president of the Canadian Chinese Kuoshu Federation. When i started to look at this website, i didn't know about freelance writer who can edit on a subject that they don't have knowledge to write it. (No offence, but he accepted to make change after a discussion of three pages). I would love also that you check out this discussion. All i tried to do here, is tried to bring my knowledge at the Lei Tai article as well as to edit the article myself. (each time, he was online tried to erase my contribution) The main goal is to not make some promotion or anything like that, but simply correcting his article with reference as well as to invite him to read carefuly our websites which he taken some info.

I'm also concerning about wikipedia. I have already tried to expose my point of view to this guy. Of course we gonna write a article about Kuoshu. Please, read our discussion, He taken some info on our website and he didn't wrote correctly the name of the Federation named by one of my master. It is easy to understand after all my request that he doesen't know at all and doesen't want to adds the correction.

The

As i told you, i didn't know about the rules of Wikipedia but now i know. Look how many time i asked him the add some change, he said " you want to bring something constructive, do it." I tried many time but with the system and his experience here on Wikipedia i never succeed to improve correctly this article. He would like to add some picture of Lei Tai fighting but he don't have as well as he taken the only info that he have on the net.

I didn't want to be rude at all, but you have to agree that this situation as nothing to do with his titles or stuff like that. I asking you to prove me that i'm intention is wrong and i don't know about my own organization. Of course this article is about Lei Tai, but in the Chinese Martial art communauty there are two prominent organization who promote a Chinese fighting style completely different and only one federation is committed to promote the Chinese tradition. In the Kung fu magazine, you can also read, The world's toughest Tournament writted about the Kuoshu. It's not an advertising, the magazine published this article. Also, The name of both organization is Wushu and Kuoshu. The name of the Wushu competitive format is Sanshou as well as the name of the competitive format for Kuoshu is "Kuoshu Lei Tai". I know that the name of the kuoshu fighting format is with the name of the organization, but what can we say or do, Asking at the Federation to change the name(lol.

Please answer me at this question, why did you sent me this message. Did you read our discussion or not? Whatever, we have to fix this problem, that all.

We think, me and all the kuoshu athletes, that if he really want to contribute to Wikipedia with deeply research, he should be better to ask to someone or simply reach on both federation involved in this discussion on their own contact page, Don't you think?

I'm also sorry about my language, I speak French, learning Ke-jia-hua from my wife and now i'm learning English.

Here some website which you can read and see what i'm talking about: www.TWKSF.org www.USCKF.org www.usckfnorth.org www.GCKF.de Frenchkuoshu.fr Kuoshu.ru www.British.Kuoshu.co.uk www.TEKSF.org

Sincerely,

Franco Richard CEO, Francombat Management Inc. 69.234.21.105 07:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only now does he act civil once I've reported him to Wikipedia and Myspace administrators for his insults. He has got the wrong idea about me. I have stated many times I am willing to work with him. But there is one thing I have to say. I wouldn't care if he was the president of the United States. His position (if it is true) holds no sway with me at all. So far, the only thing he has proven to me is that he uses his position to push people around or to try to get his way. Now that he knows that no longer works, he is trying to be nice.

I have a feeling if we let him have his way with the article; he would completely delete every bit of information about Sanshou’s involvement with the lei tai. He once told me,

Especially Sanda bout, take place into a boxing ring with almost the same rules of Kick-Boxing. Where???, When???, Who??? They have used a Lei Tai but not anymore. Since 14 years, they tried to improve Sanshou rules on a platform but they never succed. Also, a lot promoter was not confortable, to promote something that the Athletic commission didn't understand as well as to throw off a opponent. 69.234.21.105 11:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If Sanda no longer uses a lei tai, why is there a picture of the “Nine Suns Mountain Sanda Lei tai” being used in a 2004 Chinese national boxing competition currently on the lei tai page? Also, the current Rules for International Wushu Sanshou Competition (accessible from the Lei tai page) involves awarding points to fighters who throw or force their opponents from the platform! It just seems that he wants to write an unbalanced article with ONLY guoshu material. I’ve also told him on several occasions that he needs to write an article about the Kuoshu Federation. But I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to remind him that the Lei tai page is not about the Kuoshu organization itself.

He keeps on telling me how this page is going to be deleted because I didn’t consult his organization first. The lei tai existed well before his organization was even created. I am not showing any disrespect or bias to either Sanda or Kuoshu organizations at all. If I was, why would I put them into this article?

And regarding whatever material I supposedly took from his organization's website, he is wrong. I got the "dimensions" for the Kuoshu lei tai from this page. I got the information for the "Kuoshu" section from Kung Fu Magazine, which I cite. I have shown the article to Gene Ching, the current associate publisher of the magazine and he liked it a lot. He even suggested that I give it a rewrite to make it a little less encyclopedic and submit it for publication.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 18:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

No problem. I used to be in the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division, so I know that certain rules need to be followed. I have also written the United States Kuoshu Federation in regards to Francombat's claims to verify his position. I included the first insulting letter he sent me on myspace, so I hope to be hearing from them soon. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Video Game

Can you tell me what the name of this video game is? Could you also tell me some of the details of the game if it is mentioned on the page? My chinese is not so good.

http://bo.sohu.com/game/leitai.shtml

I found this a long while ago, but just recently found it again by typing in the Chinese characters for "Da Lei Tai". I would like to add snapshots of this game to the lei tai article as it falls under the fair use rule.

By the way, isn't that the character for wu ("martial") in the middle of the lei tai?(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 18:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks a bunch! I looked around and found that it is better known as just "刀剑 Online" as it was abbriviated on the page. So I'm just going to put its name as 刀剑 Online. Thanks again. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 23:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry to keep on bothering you, but I found another Chinese video game with a lei tai. (See here) Could you tell me the name and details for this one? (Ghostexorcist 04:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Here is another game. (see the very first picture near the top here) (Ghostexorcist 05:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Afd deleted article is back

Hi me again. Curious about the proper way to deal with a recreated Afd article. I had put a notability tag on Jung Sin Yuk-Do but after a snide remark on my talk page I looked deeper and found that it had relatively recently been deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jung Sin Yuk-Do. I put {{subst:afdx|2nd}} for basically the same reasons given in the original debate (and I don't like snide remarks) but it wasn't clear that this was the correct way to proceed. Please advise - if only for future reference.Peter Rehse 02:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC) PS Seemed what I did worked pretty quick. Taken care of - thanks anyway.Peter Rehse 08:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido article

I also think that the Aikido article is at a stage where it could be nominated for good article (GA) status. I'ld appreciate it if someone not related to the editing could take a look and see if it is worth nominating. CheersPeter Rehse 02:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Chi Chuan

I've nominated it for GA but I suggest trimming the external links and peppering the text with some citation/references. I actually think that both the Aikido article and Tai Chi Chuan are candidates for Featured article but lets do this one step at a time. You might want to submit the article for peer review. I wont do that to the Aikido article since there has already been quite a cooperative effort. I submitted Sumo for featured article today (already one opposition) but for our respective pets - first GA and then the world.Peter Rehse 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tessenjutsu

Can you (being one of the all powerfull ones) ban User:DrNostrand.Peter Rehse 07:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very old news that's become new again

Do you remember way back in October 2004 when there was a dispute at Talk:Cross-dressing?[1] [2] [3] Involving an editor called User:AWilliamson?[4] [5] [6] Well - I've collected a heap of evidence that he became the Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Joan_of_Arc_vandal and has disrupted a variety of topics for over two years. Consensus has been building for a community ban at WP:ANI#Admin_plays_detective...what_next.3F. Very few administrators have come into contact with this person other than me and you're one of them. I'd like to see what you think of things. Regards, Durova^Charge! 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moving error

Hi Fire Star

I screwed up a page move and would like to ask your helping in fixing it. Ghostexorcist correctly moved the original Xian (Daoist) article to Xian (Chinese immortal), but after discussion with him, I mistakenly used cut and paste trying to move it to Xian (Daoist immortal). Could you please take a look at it? Thanks. Keahapana 00:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I'm pretty certain (but please don't ask me why as it would be hard to explain), that User:Terminator III the same person as NoToFrauds who was indef blocked back in March after using 82.15.17.152 to evade his block. You were involved so thought you might be the best person to keep an eye on him and see if you agree. Note the article T3 started with and what article NTF and the IP address ended with.... A Ramachandran 00:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Japan Ju-Jitsu International Federation

I need a bit of advice on this one. The title and the first sentence is clear bunk. I'm still checking but so far the response has been scathing. This organization does not represent jujutsu in Japan or Internationally but is nothing more than a soke mill. Not clear which government recognizes it or why it matters. I can't however say that it is non-notable - it has enough members and I suppose they feel represented. Do I leave it, attempt an edit? The original writer (Soke) has a few claims about background which don't hold water but that is another issue.Peter Rehse 10:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah - and Happy New YearPeter Rehse 10:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the more over the top stuff has been removed - hard to make a case for outright removal now even though the author, and the organization, is a little over the deep end. Lots of unsubstantiated claims that in pre-internet age would be very difficult to challenge. The "Soke" claims to be the head of a 1000 year old Jujutsu style that well never existed. Much of the site that the article points to - is full of smoke and mirrors but again - the changes made to the article give a hint of the problem. Hopefully the guy is not clever enough to understand that.Peter Rehse 05:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshido/McDojo Merger issue came up again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bullshido

They're talking about remerging the articles after they've been separated and distinct for some time. Can you please lend a hand?

Thanks! --Scb steve 02:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jow Tong

I don't remember if I asked you this before, but could you take a look at my Jow Tong page and tell me if you see any major problems with it? I currently have it listed on the "GA" article candidate list because I've recently made some huge changes and added a great deal more info to the page. I realize that some sections are small, but there is just not a whole lot of info available on this guy. I ordered a book about "Yangzhou Storytelling" which details one story of how he met his folklore student Wu Song. I'll add this info to the page after I've read and summarized the tale. (Ghostexorcist 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The page was 47 kb long and I thought the section describing his martial skills was lacking, so I split that off into it's own page. The main Zhou Tong article is now a comfortable 30 kb. It looks a lot cleaner. (Ghostexorcist 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Personal attack

I find your edit here to be an unecessary personal attack. Please work with me towards a better encyclopedia. Best wishes. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this and don't see a personal attack here. A Ramachandran 01:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the edit comment of User:Fire Star that you pointed out, and don't believe that it contains a personal attack.

Wikipedia articles may not be used as references: see WP:V and WP:RS
Weasel is a technical term used on Wikipedia, see WP:WEASEL

Both these comments refer to your edits and not to your person. A Ramachandran 01:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little due diligence on your part would be appreciated Ramachandran. Some facts for you:

The personal attack is obviously the accusation that I am deliberately gaming the system. There is no other personal attack.
I was the one who refered Fire Star to WP:WEASEL in the first place. That was my accusation against his prefered edit, not the other way round.
I have never used wikipedia articles as a reference. That is Fire Stars assertion and I believe it's merely a creative mistake for arguments sake.

Ramachandran, thanks for your efforts but all you've achieved is making a bigger deal out of this than it is worth. You've turned a two-way dialogue into a three-way dialogue over what amounts to a trivial matter. May I suggest you read WP:SPIDER carefully the next time you consider intervening unecessarily. Best wishes. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's silly, I don't see how it applies. But I'll take the hint and butt out now. :-) A Ramachandran 03:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I suppose you don't. All good. Take care. :) ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack was intended, as I was commenting on the edits and not the editor. I'd have to say something directly defamatory about a person themselves, rather than simply express an opinion of what they've done, to have qualified as an attacker. My "creative mistake" was referring to Metta Bubble saying in an edit summary justifying his/her positive assertion that reiki was spiritual healing that Wikipedia's definition of spiritual healing applied to the reiki article, when it really doesn't, per the policies cited above. I respond more fully on the Talk:Reiki page. Cheers all. --Fire Star 火星 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NoToFrauds back

Please see this evidence connecting Terminator III to indef blocked user NoToFrauds. You were involved in NoToFrauds final moments... A Ramachandran 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nae Gong page

Hi Fire Star, could you lend your Wikipedia expertise towards this page? I'm pretty sure it needs to be deleted/'added to the Neigong page. Bihal 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health section on Falun Gong

Hi. So what is your proposal of the health section on Falun Gong? We remove it as a whole? The studies are horribly unqualified and the methodologies questionable. They honestly do not deserve a place on Wikipedia. What are your views? Colipon+(T) 20:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed three-strike solution for FG entry

Hi Fire Star, I've proposed a three-strike solution in response to some editors' behavior. Some appear to deliberately disrupt any consensus process, and would gladly see an edit war take place just so that their heavily-edited version is kept thanks to an administrator protecting the page by locking it down.

I hope you can support it, thanks! Jsw663 19:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harrasment

Hello FireStar, I see the user WORLDJKD was finally blocked (Thanks). It seems he may still be around without an account. He has been leaving the same threats on my discussion page as he did in the JKD discussion page. What can I do to prevent this as it clearly violates WP:HAR? Any assistance would greatly be appreciated. FrankWilliams 13:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help and continued vigilance. FrankWilliams 16:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo deletion

Can you please delete the following photos for me?

image:Yue_Fei.jpg

image:Yue Fei.jpg

I uploaded the first one, but found a better version of it. When I uploaded the new version, it conflicted with the old version. What I mean is, when a person clicks on the newer version for a “high resolution" view, the link goes back to the much smaller original version. I uploaded it again and renamed it this time. I have no use for the above two anymore. If you can’t do it, can you forward this to someone who can? Thank you in advance.

By the way, if you go to image:Four Generals.jpg and click on the “higher resolution” bit, General Yue Fei is the second person from the left. I recently read an article that states an officer of the Yue Fei Temple Administration and a history professor at Zhejiang University believe this portrait to be the truest image of Yue Fei in existence. He is a lot chubbier than all of the other portraits and statues I’ve seen! (Ghostexorcist 12:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the help! I uploaded an even larger version of it. Enjoy: image:Four_Generals_of_Song.jpg. (Ghostexorcist 11:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

A new approach to the Falun Gong article

Hello Fire Star, please see the Falun Gong talk page and state your opinion about my proposal concerning a strict source policy. I think it's worth serious consideration. You know that the situation is tense, so we really need to find a common set of rules that is absolutely fair to all parties. In my opinion, the three-strike rule requires too much devotion to Wikipedia, and thus discriminates against a large group of editors. ---Olaf Stephanos 21:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel's editing behaviour on Suppression of Falun Gong page

Hello Fire Star. I request your attention on the above page. A quick look through the edit history should tell the story. I have spent a little while just now looking for a wikiway to draw attention to this behaviour and do something to stop it, but I could find nothing on the help pages. Then I remembered you. Much content was blanked with no explanation, and replaced with unsourced content. With all the discussion we have been having about the importance of integrity in editing, and the attitude of editors involved in this project (mine included), plus the proposals from Jsw and Olaf about principles or processes we can abide by to prevent just this, it is rather disappointing to see Samuel and to a lesser extent Yueyen doing this kind of thing again. I probably do not have to say too much, the edit history is there. I hope you can compare the versions, note the comments, and see what you can do. Otherwise, are you able to point me in the right direction, about any way these kind of blatant violations can be dealt with?--Asdfg12345 02:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blarab

His why have you threatened to block me for creating an article on blarabs? Lots of such articles exist on wikipedia. See blasian, mulatto, octoroon. This term is extremely common in Ethiopia though may sound strange to Western editors. Subspecies

I didn't mean to push an agenda in the races of India article, I just thought the intro was too politically incorrect. Anyway my only agenda in creating the blarab article is to introduce this term to Western culture. For example, we have terms for people who are half-black, half-white, mulatto, and terms for people who are half-black, half-East Asian Blasian but how on Earth are people who are half-black and half-Arab to be identified? They're force to choose one ethnic origin over another. My only agenda is to create a space on wikipedia for multiracial identity. Too often multiracials are forced to identify with one race or another and now people wont even let them call themselves multiracial because they say race does not exist so how can multiracial exist? Anyway the term is extremely common in the heavily Arabized Ethiopia because Ethiopians don't have much of a voice on the world wide web so sorry for the lack of sources. Subspecies

Explanation for why I thought 2 of 3 were biased for McConn's suppression/persecution issue

Requoting what I wrote on Armedblowfish's proposal here:

"Hi, I think I should explain my view. Ed Poor himself has admitted that he is pro-FG, but by declining to contribute to a decision involving FG, he is rendered neutral. However, if he had decided, he would qualify as being pro-FG, thus making the 2 pro-FG and 1 neutral balance distinctly unfair.

CovenantD has tried to have the anti-FG duo of Samuel Luo and Tomananda banned for sockpuppeting - nothing wrong so far. But when his case failed after they proved they were two separate people, he became uncivil and started making rash accusations. This earned him a temporary block. This is why I say this person cannot be neutral; obviously this user has a pro-FG agenda.

So to conclude, this is why I said that two of the three users which McConn asked were pro-FG, and thus could not deliver an unbiased decision, should each of those two pass a judgment or opinion on the case." Jsw663 13:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LongBay (talk · contribs)

Hi. You blocked LongBay (talk · contribs) [7] with the explanation "repeat vandalism after 2 last warnings" and indicated on his talk page that it was for vandalism on Lindsey Lohan. The user has made a request to be unblocked. I took a look and couldn't find any recent vandalism. Could the edit(s) in question have been purged from history as something defammatory? If not, could you provide the diff(s) that led to the block so that the request for unblock can be evaluated? Thank you. --BigDT 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:82.144.243.116

I have reverted this piece of vandalism by 82.144.243.116, carried out after you blocked the IP. I have not left a warning so far. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 12:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Invader Zim

Welcome to the Invader Zim WikiProject. Thanks for joining up --BillPP ^(talk) 02:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hobbyists

I dont think that it needs more extensive explanation. its pretty obvious that Yang and Chen family teachers arent being trained as bodyguards anymore. goes without saying when it is A: completely obvious. and B: already explained on the main Tai Chi Chuan page. people understand that training martial applications as an avenue to health and good Yi doesnt entail military style training. VanTucky 21:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improper Administrative Actions

There is an admin named Khoikhoi that disagrees with the discussion page majority on whether or not a particular article should be moved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reggaeton

A contributor asked for facts which support why the page should not be moved, and those facts were provided. Rather than allow users to see these new facts, KhoiKhoi has decided to simply delete them with no explanation and has blocked the talk page in an attempt to prevent others from restoring them. Its irrelevant as to whether or not its a contributor with a screen name or an anonymous IP, the fact is that evidence was provided, and it was immediately deleted. I'm not sure where to report Adminstrators for actions unbecoming of Wikipedia's TOS, so I was hoping maybe you would have some insight, thanks. 68.155.86.174 02:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Luo has been taken to ArbCom

Hello, I have filed a request for evaluating the consistency of Samuel Luo's behaviour with the Wikipedia policies. Please have a look: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Samuel Luo. We have gone through his edits from the past year, and if the ArbCom accepts this case, we can provide them with a list of his worst violations in reverse chronological order. If you want, you can give your comments on the aforementioned page. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Firestar, your opinion would be valuable for the ArbCom case proposal, and since there may be a deadline regarding accepting opinions, please post yours on the Requests for Arbitration page asap! Jsw663 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firestar, the arbitration case is changed from “Samuel Luo” to “Falun Gong” by the clerk of the Ardcom. Although the case title has changed, the statement posts in the section still focus on me. You filed an arbitration request for the Falun Gong article a while ago, would you consider reposting that request in this section again?

Ever since I saw your statement here I have been wanting to talk to you. I do not recall anti-FLG editors rountinely removing, as you said, “well-documented material that seems critical of the Chinese govt. and its suppression of the movement (imprisonment, torture, organ harvesting, etc.)” This material has been included on the FLG main page and the Suppression of Falun Gong page. In my recollection anti-FLG editors, including myself, have only rountinely removed Falun gong pictures and recently, after your statement was made, I have removed some material only from the Suppression of Falun Gong page and only to eliminate redundancy and material that was sourced from FLG’s own website. Please see my message on the talk page. --Samuel Luo 06:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One question

Are you a "she"? Just curious. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it doesn't matter. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shuang_Yang page that you deleted for copyright violations actually received, via Michelle Kinney, permission to use it by the holders of the copyright. Please restore it.

Re: World Jiansu League

quote: "wWe'll need a source for that sort of statement. I teach my students fencing with the jian, for example, and I know of dozens of other schools that do too and no one has died yet! ;-)) " Reply: Ok, I'll see what I can do about references, and thanks for the input on the article. I'll try to make some changes to it so that it seems a little more unbiased. I'd also just like to mention that the keyword that you deleted that I should have emphasized was "standardized", while you focused on the word "safe". Of course there are safe ways to practice jianshu with partners, but there is no standardized way of doing so, and that's one of the things that the organization is trying to establish. Live steel practice always has risks involved, and depending on how you train with it, and the quality of swords you use, it can be dangerous or not, but anyway, I think I will abandon the comment you deleted, and try a different, more historically-related route for that part of the article. Thanks. Neo onodrim 01:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wish to comment?

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Watchtower_Sentinel - I think you have some perspective on this, since you dealt with and I think blocked NoToFrauds (talk · contribs) last year. --Hamsacharya dan 02:45, 25 March 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]

your statement

Fire Star, the organ harvesting issue is covered in a section on the Suppression of Falun Gong page; I still remember the dispute over it. Anti-FG editors inserted material showing that the Chinese government does not engage in organ harvesting (eg: a US State Department report). FGers inserted an excessive amount of material such as the following phone transcript from David Matas and David Kilgour’s report.

Mijiang City Detention Centre, Heilongjiang province (8 June 2006): M: Do you have Falun Gong [organ] suppliers? ... Mr. Li: We used to have, yes. M: … what about now? Mr. Li: … Yes.

I don’t remember what other anti-FG editors did, but I remember removing this phone transcript myself. In this dispute anti-FG editors reduced FGers’ material to about the same length of theirs. I believed FGers intentionally placing excessive amount of material to overwhelm ours and to push their POV.

Getting back to the following two statements you made:

1. I also support inclusion of well-documented material that seems critical of the Chinese govt. and its suppression of the movement (imprisonment, torture, organ harvesting, etc.), which anti-FLG editors routinely remove. [8]

2. I'll agree that the anti- bunch have gone too far the other way, as I think there is valid material for at least reporting claims of CCP abuses, torture, organ harvesting, etc., that the anti- group removes. [9]

Since you were referring only to the dispute over the organ harvesting material, it is correct to say that these statements are misleading. They also damage the image of anti-FG editors. Anyone who reads these statements would come away thinking that anti-FG editors have behaved as bad as FGers, or worse, they might even be working for the Chinese government.

Frankly, I was somewhat offended when I saw the first statement. I have to contact you now because the arbitration case is accepted and these statements might mislead the arbitrators. Could you remove or correct them by qualifying them? Thanks--Samuel Luo 06:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Star, I have always respected you, your neutral edits and your articulate comments on talk pages have left me with a good impression. I know anti-FG editors, including myself, have been zealous in our opposition against POV pushing FGers, and some of us did engage in wholesale back and forth reversions with FGers. However, these edit conflicts were mostly over Li’s statements and teachings that FGers prefer to conceal. If your sweeping statements were about these back and forth reversions I would have nothing to object to. I feel a strong need to write to you because your two statements, as explained above, are inaccurate and leave wrong impressions for anti-FG editors. I am sorry to hear that you don’t feel the need to retract or modify these statements. Normally, I would not continue pressing on the issue, however because these statements unfairly portrays us in a very negative light I have no choice but to write you again.

Your statements imply that anti-FG editors have an agenda to push and that they are apologists for the Chinese govt. I am sure you know how unpopular that is in the West. These statements are inaccurate because anti-FG editors have not routinely removed “well-documented material that seems critical of the Chinese govt. and its suppression of the movement.” Even you yourself admit that you made your statements based on the content dispute of the organ harvesting section on the Suppression of Falun Gong page a few months ago, alone. In other words anti-FG editors have not routinely removed material that is critical of the Chinese govt, as such material has always been included on multiple pages. Further more, in that dispute over the content on the organ harvesting section, anti-FG editors only reduced material from FG affiliated organizations and that of David Kilgour’s report. Such material was never entirely removed, the record will show that.

I am not trying to force a point of view on you, I just feel that I am being wrongfully accused of doing something that I did not do and I believe you should know that. I am sure other editors who are being categorized as anti-FG editors feel the same way. I am writing to you because you are someone who can be reasoned with. Hopefully you can be sensitive about our feelings and kindly retract or modify your statements. Best, --Samuel Luo 02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Star, can you please give a statement of evidence for the FG arbitration case? I know that like me you will probably not have too much evidence to give, but your input regarding editorial behavior by all sides could still be valuable. Jsw663 13:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comment

I read the article that you suggested. I have a question. If an admin doesn't understand a basic rule like WP:ATT, what options do I have left. I have been trying to talk for more than 2 weeks with the editor to no avail. He suggested RfC so I am starting it. To show what effort I have made so far

Lots of editors (including me) talked with Dab regarding this article [[10]] and [[11]]. This whole article is OR and did not provide any citation, till I got involved. All the arguments being presented in the article or the name of article can not be sourced to any verifiable source.

I have asked for citation since Feb 13, none provided so far. If I put OR tag or fact tag on controversial statement, it is removed without providing any citation. On talk page he provides arguments without providing citation as to who as presented this argument in which publication.

The citation that are provided turn out to say something different than what Dab quotes in the article [[12]]. When I correct the text based on the same citation that he provided, while quoting text from citation [[13]] and [[14]]. He starts edit warring and then blames me for it. Please see comments from other admin re his block [[15]].

I have tried good faith, but how long can I clap with one hand. Any advice you can provide will be appreciated.Sbhushan 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the RfC was deleted, when I was going to save it. So should I start again, OR can the RfC be opened again. ThanksSbhushan 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC has meet the requriement of two-person threshold, but is still not listed as an approved case at [[16]]. Is there something that I have to do? I want to make sure that the case doesn't get dropped out because of technicality. And I am not sure who I can ask this question. Thanks.Sbhushan 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Deleting unbiquadium article

Creating unbiquadium article shouldn't considered vandalism, this is not a made up element or it should be OK to create this article. Unbiquadium is found on the extended periodic table. Datas for unbiquadium can be found in Apsidium.com and Webelements.com. Unbiquadium was a redirect page to systematic element name. In unbiquadium main article, there is 'systematic element name' link under history section. Since if I created this article that shouldn't considered vandalism, please don't delete this article anymore. Thank you!

Making possible discoveries in New Worlds Imager

I typed under possible discoveries section about telling somebody to create section article of possible discoveries in New Worlds Imager. This article is 17 months old and at least one still didn't have section article under section title. Last time that the last section article was created was back in August 2006. And then I was waiting for somebody to create one more section about 'Possible discoveries' since August 2006. The talk page of New Worlds Imager is only about creating section article of possible discoveries with Jyril back in beginning of January 2007. So can you please create the section article under possible discoveries – Thank you! Possible discoveries would be interesting because under possible discoveries section, there would be about how low is the lowest mass planet of this observation, how far is the farthest planet possible by mass orders, how many planets will be detected in total, how many stars will observe simultaneously, whether it will detect moons – if so, how many moons around how many planets will be detected, finding life, and other information. Cosmium 23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revertion in list of stars by constellations and discoveries of additional three new planets

I seen that you removed three stars with planets from the list of stars by constellation articles. Did you know that three more planets were discovered around these three stars. The list of stars by constellation articles should contain all stars that has known planets, even if these planets were discovered the most recently. Please do not remove these stars from the list anymore. However, as of March 5 today, an additional three new planets were discovered. You'll find out what these planets are when you go to the website Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia. You should go to list of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets and add these planets and stars to the list. You should also add these planets and stars to the list of stars by constellation articles.

Revertion in constellation articles

In constellation articles, you reverted by changing the datas in constellation box back where it was. In editing site, you removed 'bf' from between 'number' and 'star' that was attached together. 'bf' stands for bayer-flamsteed. Number of stars means number of bayer-flamsteed stars. I added 'bf' in between 'number' and 'stars' attached together because I should make it more knownly and in main article, instead of saying 'Number of stars', it says 'Bayer/Flamsteed stars'. In editing site, if you remove 'bf' from between 'number' and 'stars', then there is no data or data is blanked or no number under or next to Bayer/Flamsteed stars. Please don't revert edit anymore, but you could revert edits back to last version by Cosmium. Cosmium 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete image

Can you please delete Image:Sacredcow2.JPG for me? I tried uploading a new version of it and, instead of the old one being overwritten, it created two images with the same name. You should be able to delete both pics from the same page. I uploaded a 3rd time and renamed it. Thankyou in advance. (Ghostexorcist 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ashida Kim rv -- oops

Sorry about that. Spoxjox 05:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Li Hongzhi

Sorry to disturb your wikibreak... I have created a discussion regarding some disputed edits to Li Hongzhi. You can find the discussion here →Talk:Li_Hongzhi#Disputed_Edits. Since you were previously involved in the article, your input would be appreciated. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shuang Yang

I noticed you deleted this article as a copyvio a couple of days ago. We did receive a release under the GFDL for the text of the website being used in the article at WP:OTRS; the talk page was updated on March 25th to reflect this release. Since there are pages on the website which released the text that are identical to the article, I'm going to go ahead and restore it for now.

Of course this doesn't mean that the article can't be deleted under another deletion criteria and the copyright holder was notified of this when they released the text to us. Thanks! Shell ^babelfish 04:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moho

So was moving Moho to its own page not wiki-kosher? I thought it was better than leaving it on the disambig page. Bo-Lingua 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see my supplemental comment on my talk page.

Ching Hai Edits

Hi FireStar! My edits follow WP:WTA. Considering it's her bio, removing the words "claim" and "says" gives a more neutral POV. Otherwise every sentence in the bio would start with "claims". If she has to "claim" that she learned Buddhism from her grandmother, then she would have to "claim" that she was brought up as a Roman Catholic, a daughter of a naturopath, born in Vietnam, etc. What makes one piece of info "claim" and another not? I hope my explanation makes sense. Looking forward to chatting with you futher on this topic. Thanks and have a great day! Sg2ns5 16:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems editing page

For some reason I can no longer edit the Yue Fei page. When I try to edit it, it brings me to this page (It should say "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage"). I even logged off and tried editing the page anonymously and it didn't work either. I can edit any other page that I want except this one. There has to be a reason for it. (Ghostexorcist 07:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Basically, I still cannot edit the entire page. Fore a short while, I could edit individual sections, but now I can't touch those either. I even switched to a different browser and it didn't even help. Whenever I hit the "save" button, it takes only a second for it to "time out" and then it says the page is experiencing a problem or I'm not connected to the internet. Everyone else can edit the page easily. (Ghostexorcist 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

editing as an "anon" doesn't work either. (Ghostexorcist 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Could you help me write this article?

Hello,

I was wondering if you would be willing to help me write either Seikichi_Iha or Shorin-ryu_Shido-kan. Tkjazzer 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

criticisms of qigong

I have posted a note on your recent edits on the talk:Qigong page. VanTucky 18:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

qi article

Hi,

Are you actively involved currently? I tried to make some needed changes to the qi article and got a rather nasty revert from somebody who apparently thinks he is an expert on the subject of qi. I haven't felt like getting into an edit war over it, particularly if you are currently involved in other matters. The citations in the top part of the article are pretty complete, but there won't be citations for some of the rest of the stuff because it isn't accurate. Thanks. P0M 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falung Gong arbitration case

Hello Fire Star. As one of the arbitrators dealing with the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong case, I have just spent about fifteen hours, over the course of the past few days, reviewing all the archives of the page Talk:Falun Gong, including your edits to the Falun Gong article. I would like to commend and thank you for your contributions there. From what I've seen, even though you have disagreements with Falun Gong, yours has generally been a voice of reason and restraint, and adherence to Wikipedia policies. Cases like this are very difficult and involve a lot of time for the arbitrators to truly understand a complicated situation like this, I am sorry that any sanction of your actions was considered.

Further, having now read thousands of words written by you, I would be pleased if you could share your views concerning the proposed final decision, particularly the proposed remedies. I will understand if you would rather not, but if you wish to, you can do so either at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Proposed decision, or privately via email here. Thanks and regards, Paul August ☎ 18:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The GIF Theory on vandalism

It's kind of a shame that people seem to cultivate these vulgar, antagonistic personalities online. Some of them are just kids who don't know any better, others just use anonymity as an excuse to act like total dicks. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:56, 1 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]

Unspecified source for Image:Yang Ch'eng-fu.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yang Ch'eng-fu.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. PatríciaR ^discussão 12:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, sorry about that... PatríciaR ^msg 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tai chi chuan

Hi Firestar, as you can see I've been going through and removing all the arbitrary caps (specifically of Tai chi chuan, as well as in some style articles the names of forms i.e. Long Form to long form). I know you steward the Wu style page and some others, if you could ever find the time to help me with this rather tedious task I would appreciate it. VanTucky 17:23, 13 May 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: Ayi Kwei Armah; Alley Kat Brewing Company; From the House of the Dead; Sihing; Shakuni; Nakajima Aircraft Company; Christel Khalil; Listen Up; Yang Hui; Empresas Polar; Guanxi; Zuo Zhuan; Dale Hawkins; Yang Kaihui; List of breakdance crews; Moral universalism; DiG!; Kokang; Deep-sea gigantism

Cleanup: Sigil (magic); Meridian (Chinese medicine); Sweetness
Merge: Transitioning (transgender); Pripps; Pripps Blå
Add Sources: Nam Pai Chuan; GIR (Invader Zim); Yang Jiang
Wikify: Dee Bradley Baker; Confined space rescue; Folk psychology
Expand: Self-deprecation; Way of the Dragon; Klemens Wenzel von Metternich

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 15:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please warn vandals after reverting their edits on Rosicrucian. using TW

Hello. I'm in agreement with the recent revert you made to Rosicrucian. You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. G1ggy^{Talk - Chalk} 03:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok then. I just sent that message thinking you had forgotten, since it had been a while after the edit. G1ggy^{Talk - Chalk} 09:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

69.117.20.128

What you did to this user 69.117.20.128 was totally unfair! This editor didn't even vandalize any article. They were all innocent editing. What is your problem? you are wrong and you don't even admit it. You can't just assume that everyone is a puppeteer. Can you please unblock it? It's not fair....Don't you ever accuse me for being a sockpocket. You have no right to...Check out my contributions...have I have vandalize any articles? NO! But still you accuse me...I deserve an apology. I don't have the same language as Jessica. Prove it. You can't just assume. I am not a sockpuppet. I know it's bad but i honestly am not one. (Morrie)

Speaking of Jessica -- can you clarify the difference between a ban and a block? I mean other admins have been aware of her use of IP accounts since her actual accounts got blocked so I'm just wondering what the change was. Thanks, MrMacMan^Talk 04:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Although I now have another concern -- you deleted the photos the Jessica had uploaded but they were good photos so I don't see a reason to blank her entire history on wikipedia. MrMacMan^Talk 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tai chi photos

Do you want to just replace the Yang style image in the history and styles section with the Wu photo? There are already three Yang images on the page as it stands, and it would look better if you had the Wu photo in that place instead of after the family tree. VanTucky 00:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am constantly hoping someone will update the Commons tai chi category with a new Chen image, as I hate to repeat the same single image of Chen everywhere. I'll try looking in the image resources links on WP. VanTucky 00:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Provide Adequate Reason

The photo you deleted has been on this site for several months. Is this an edit war or is there a copyright issue?Richard Dates 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:I'm so bored

You sockpuppeted this user according to his talk page, and he/she is requesting an unblock stating he/she isn't "Jessica" FYI :) SGGH ^speak! 00:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Education Picture

The picture that was with the article is from the website of the alternative school which is listed. The caption therefore is accurate. This is not one of the most famous alternative schools, but it appears to be a successful one. I don't know where the sockpuppet issue and the copyright issue fit into this situation. I'd like to see some nice pictures on the page and I'm not entirely clear on the procedure for clearing copyrights. Perhaps you can check with the school and see if you can clear use or go to one the the more prominent alternative schools and see if you can use their pictures.Richard Dates 15:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't warn me for pointing out a logical fallacy

Alison and One Night In Hackney were refusing to answer my question and were bringing up irrelevant information. So I told them to that this was illogical. This is true. Don't warn someone for pointing of the errors of other members. Please apologize for your unthought out warning. Bobby Sands man 18:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. You have nothing to apologise for - Alison ☺ 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is my language was uncalled for, Fire Star? I was be very nice, asking for an apology because you gave me a warning just because I pointed out a logical fallacy. Pointing that out is not in violation of any wikipedia policy, yet you warned me for it, because you did not think it out. You do have some to apologize for and I advise you ignore Alison in this case because she is angry at me for other reasons, she would warn me even if I apologized to you. Bobby Sands man 23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have posted the following comment regarding this editor on ANI - Alison ☺ 00:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reiki

I think the recent edits, tagging many of the problem areas, is a good temporary solution. Yes, we want to be careful not to make it sound as if Reiki actually works, but many of the qualifiers seem unnecessary or worse. I think IPSOS did a good job of identifying issues to be addressed. What's your perspective? --Ronz 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Edit War

I will accept your non-constructive change to the article on Alternative Education. I have reviewed your contributions and you seem to spend most of your time criticizing and reverting other people's work. That may or may not be justified, but I don't see much evidence of constructive work. I mean this to be a constructive criticism and a bit of a challenge. Let's see you add some significant contributions!Richard Dates 14:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My First Barn Star :)

Thanks very much.

Re: User:lightmouse

Hi there. Just regarding your comments on this edit: if it has been recognised that the user is using a bot on their account without even authorisation to test the bot (which should be a separate account), then why has this user not been instructed to stop using the bot, even though it may be in good faith? :) It was my understanding that users may only use bots with special authorisation, on special accounts, with edit frequency restrictions.

Chrisch^Talk 12:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, this ~~bot~~ editor should be stopped, and his edits rolled back. -- Petri Krohn 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

back in business

68.77.33.7 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]