User talk:Mrund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Mrund, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Sources?[edit]

Hi. Which sources did you use for your recent additions to the history section in Sweden? Would you mind inserting a reference? I'd be happy to help you with the formatting, if you are unfamiliar with it. Thanks, henriktalk 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good question, and one that I have trouble answering. You see, I'm a full-time research scholar in Swedish archaeology, and I'm writing the whole thing from the top of my head. It's my stock in trade. If there is any one point that you find controversial, then maybe I can dig up a reference.
I hope you will believe me when I say that the 2000 book about Sweden before 1520 that was used to reference the sections I've replaced is very badly out of date, indeed was out of date already when published. The author's name is entirely unknown in Swedish prehistoric archaeology.
Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, I suspected something like that. But perhaps there are some reference works you could add? Not every sentence need detailed sourcing. Pointing a paragraph to a relevant chapter in a book is enough. An important, if secondary, role of an encyclopedia is to point interested readers towards more detailed (and perhaps more reliable) sources. That's why it is useful to source even non-controversial material.
The main article, Prehistoric Sweden could also use some loving, if you're up to it. :-) henriktalk 14:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I could add a section for "Further reading" at the end. That's what I'd do if I were writing for a print encyclopedia.
Prehistoric Sweden presents a little problem. It redirects to an article titled Scandinavian prehistory, which is a heavily error-ridden article about Swedish matters that someone has made slight attempts to expand into a pan-Scandy version. I'd prefer to re-name it back to Prehistoric Sweden and then go to work on it. Whatcha say? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a bit different than print encyclopedias in that we do not (generally) have expert writers like yourself. People trust traditional encyclopedias because they are expected to select trustworthy editors - Wikipedia allows experts and non-experts alike, so the text must be able to stand on its own without the implied authority of the writer. This is why we request more specific sourcing than a print encyclopedia.
I'm afraid the coverage of Scandinavian and Swedish history on wikipedia is very spotty. A few more modern and narrow topics are fairly good, but the overview articles are a mess, so it's great to see someone with real knowledge here. As for the prehistory, please - Go ahead! henriktalk 10:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Sweden[edit]

Hi there. I noticed your recent edit to Sweden. [1]. Since you removed sourced statements with unsourced statements, could you please use the talk page of the article to explain? Thank you. --mceder (u t c) 09:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on Talk:Sweden[edit]

Yes of course you can improve the separate article on Prehistoric Sweden. However, even if you don't feel the need to add citations, please remember that this is a Wikipedia, and anyone can add or remove things you have written. If you reference everything, it will be easier to keep the article in a good state, to improve on it, and to check the facts. But if you want write, just write... / Fred-J 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Prehistoric Sweden[edit]

Hi again. Perhaps you could just start to write a new article? I have blanked Prehistoric Sweden for you, so you can start writing it there if you want to. / Fred-J 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll do that. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong[edit]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Falun Gong. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. TigerShark (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Reprimand accepted. I didn't know about that rule. The three Falun Gong devotees I was edit warring with took turns undoing my edits. This gives them nine legitimate undo chances per 24 hours. I could of course recruit friends to do the same, but I'd really rather not. My suggested brief addition to the Falun Gong article is intended as to be constructive, not vandalism. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You have shown your unwillingness to engage in discussion on the talk page, as well as resorting to ad-hominem attacks, as you have just repeated here ("Falun Gong devotees"). You have been continually asked to seek consensus on your edit and make sure they are compatible with the cited wikipedia policies. There is a whole section in wikipedia policies on self-published sources which demonstrates that Randi doesn't qualify as a reliable source for commenting on Falun Gong--he can write what he wants on his site. There's another whole section about how minority claims should be handled quite carefully--his views are firmly in the minority. Because you can put a reference tag on it doesn't mean you can insert it as you wish. Wikipedia should be edited by consensus. I sought compromise on this edit but you have forged ahead with the edit warring, and yourself said that you intend to be stubborn about it. I'm not sure how you expect others to respond to this kind of thing. It doesn't leave others much option when you refuse to engage in discussion. There are clear points related to policies which have been brought up which are outstanding. You have left brief notes in response, questioning the intentions of other editors, rather than responding to the arguments. You have reverted twice as many times as you should have, there is still no consensus, there are still outstanding policy issues. If you accept being reprimanded, does that mean you are willing to engage in discussion about your editing, so we can do things in accordance with wikipedia policies?--Asdfg12345 06:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly invited everybody to comment on and improve my suggested critical additions. Only once has someone half-accepted the invitation by stripping out the criticism from my addition and padding the remainder with praise. I have not touched any existing pro-FG or anti-Chinese-government material in the article. I am convinced that your intentions in this case, Asdfg, are not the ones you advance in public. You are clearly attempting to hide your pro-FG agenda behind a smoke screen of misapplied Wikipedia formalism. Your unwillingness to accept James Randi as a relevant commentator on the issue is a blatant example of this. I, on the other hand, write under my true name with a clearly stated skeptical agenda that is not confined to issues about FG. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, you cannot use Wikipedia to promote or endorse a "skeptical" agenda, or any other ideological point of view. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. User:Tomananda and User:Samuel Luo were permanently banned from Wikipedia, because the arbitration committee found that Tomananda "has engaged in edit-warring and attempts to use Wikipedia for ideological struggle and advocacy", and Samuel Luo "has engaged in edit-warring to promote a viewpoint consistent with his outside activism". [2] If your sources don't qualify, if you attempt to give undue weight to viewpoints that have been largely debunked by the relevant academic community, and if you insist on argumenta ad populum and biased personal viewpoints ("The issue is clouded by the fact that anyone who criticises the movement is usually soon accused of supporting the Chinese government"), you are directly violating certain non-negotiable policies, and of course we are concerned and will stop you from doing that. You have never even tried to back up your edits by referring to the policies, and you have categorically ignored our analyses on your misdemeanours. Olaf Stephanos 10:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Haha, Olaf, and you have no agenda here? For Dawkins' sake, man, on your user description page you say "my chief interests and contributions are related to the horrendous persecution of Falun Gong practitioners"! You're really too much. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You neglect a crucial difference here. I am operating within the boundaries of Wikipedia-qualified sources and clearly explicated policies and guidelines. I do not approve of edits just because they're pro-FLG, and I don't disapprove of edits just because they're anti-FLG. As long as the material is verifiable and originates from a reliable source (not what I think is reliable, but what is reliable from the perspective of Wikipedia), I am absolutely in favour of consensus-seeking, balanced approach. You, on the other hand, have blatantly neglected the criticism that has been presented against your edits, even though we have made numerous references to appropriate policies. What you ought to do in that situation is to find "legal" means to defend your edits, but you have not done that. Wikipedia is not an anarchy.
James Randi is a partisan skeptic, not an expert of Falun Gong. He can write whatever he wants on his website, and his devotees will probably share his point of view without any further fact-checking. Have a look at Wikipedia:Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources (emphasis not mine): "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking." James Randi's POV on Falun Gong is a fringe view in the academic community. Serious Falun Gong researchers, such as David Ownby (sinologist, historian of Chinese popular religion & Chinese millenarianism at the University of Montreal), have completely debunked the claims of such people. They represent the academic mainstream, and their writings are actually based on something concrete, not personal biases and airy-fairy opinions. If you find significant publications, preferably peer-reviewed journals, criticizing Falun Gong - that's fine, and we can move on to evaluating their place and weight in the article. But now you appear out of the blue, pushing unacademic personal blogs, and even trying to make room for their stuff in the introduction of an article that has been under close scrutiny and serious debate for years. In the light of all this, how do you expect to come across as a reasonable, rational person? Olaf Stephanos 12:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A note for you Martin. I understand that you are someone with a predisposition to suspecting or thinking ill of anything like Falun Gong, and that you inherently feel that the whole notion of a spiritual cultivation practice is somehow vacuous, fake, or stupid. Falun Gong doesn't charge any money, it isn't an organisation, and there's no membership. It's a set of exercises with a strong spiritual/moral component. They're free, along with the books, on the internet. I have benefited hugely from it, in obvious and not obvious ways. I used to do a fair amount of drugs on a regular basis, and I was pretty much reliant on marijuana and alcohol, also on a regular basis. Then there are other things like watching pornography regularly, arguing with people, and a lot of generalised things like not really caring much about people around me but just absorbed in my own things, basically just selfishness, plus a lot of other stuff, like personal anxiety and whatever else. I don't do drugs, drink, etc. any more, which is good, and am pretty clearheaded generally, and I have a clear understanding of what I live for. I have a lot more self-discipline, and self-discipline is in fact one of the best and most important lessons I have learnt since practicing Dafa.

There are also other, deeper issues, you could say metaphysical concerns, which I feel have been addressed. I am studying philosophy as part of my university degree, and I have always considered questions such as the purpose of human life, the meaning of the good life, and all these other things, and read a lot of books in relation to these things. I also read a lot about paranormal phenomena, altered states of consciousness, mysticism, and so on. I also felt Falun Gong responded well to my previous thoughts and questions about these things. In the end, it has basically just taught me to try to be a good person. I think it's quite a good thing. Practicing Falun Gong is entirely a personal affair.

I meet on a regular basis with other practitioners who live near me, to read the books together, discuss them, and do the exercises. Now with the persecution, we also meet up to set up a poster-display or whatever, hand out flyers. We communicate through email. It's all quite simple. You must think the supernatural element is very ridiculous, and to you this deserves some ridicule. I know many people who share similar views. The core of Falun Gong is Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance, and it is saying, in my view, that the essence of human life lies in these principles, and the point of it is to align with these principles--that essentially human life is not meant for being human, but for assimilating to these principles. There's more to it than that.

All these supernatural things are inevitable products of a certain ontology, consequences of other more basis propositions, this is the best way I can put it in a few words. There's nothing wrong with that, and people can believe what they like, even if it didn't have any rationale at all. That shouldn't be slapped with a label, and you needn't think ill of that. You obviously already didn't like Falun Gong before you came here, so I hope that I am unable to take the credit for your recent comments.

The reason for the stern resistance you have met with has mostly been explained to you: failure to adhere to wikipedia policies. Obviously you are not satisfied with this as an explanation, however, and want to know why I would bother citing them and challenging you. Don't think I can give a quick answer. I have my reasons, and my intentions are quite good. Personally, I don't give a hoot what you do, so I'm not spending my time here out of some personal feelings, whims, or desires. It's not simple to explain important and involved ideas quickly to a stranger with some text. My motivations are wholly good, and they are not driven by any personal benefit. Besides this, I think it's a cop-out to question my motivations when you've got a mountain of unaddressed wikipedia policy issues, and when I've only ever cited them and demanded you stick to them. This should actually be the focus, shouldn't it? But since you asked, and I do value what you say, and I do not want you to hate Falun Gong, I spend 20 minutes writing this to you. I'm not sure if it has helped answer any unresolved issues, or brought you a greater understanding. I would only bother writing all this if I thought it was going to be useful. I can answer any questions you have about Falun Gong--there's a start. I'm quite a friendly person. I don't know what your problem is, in the end. Fundamentally, Falun Gong is peaceful, and teaches people to be good. I should ask you why you are bothering to attack a peaceful spiritual practice?--Asdfg12345 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you asked: I believe that you are sadly deluded, that your supernatural beliefs are crazy and that movements such as FG, Raelianism, Scientology, Christianity, Islam etc. are harmful. I think people would be much better off living in the real world than in these fantasies. Thus I think Wikipedia articles should not consist of one-sided religious propaganda. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
One question, Dr. Rundkvist: is your own scientific research also based on self-published material that has never undergone peer review? If not, why do you expect to get away with that in Wikipedia? If yes, your university system must be quite different from ours. Olaf Stephanos 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my research tends to be based on stuff people have dug out of the ground. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
...using fringe theories that have been largely debunked and opposed by archaeologists at large? Right. You don't do that. If you really want to improve your position in this debate, why on earth don't you dig up (pun intended) some quality sources that we have no way contesting so easily? I mean, I'm not doing this because I would want to hide something. I seriously think a balanced Falun Gong article is in the interests of everybody, and I would really want to see it pass a Wikipedia community review and eventually become featured. That will never happen if the editors cannot take challenges and provide answers to those who are concerned. These pages have seen enormous disputes in the past, and it was exactly because people couldn't familiarize themselves with the policies and guidelines, back up their claims, validate their sources with policy references and stick to reliable high-quality material. It was a huge mess, and the arbitration case was very time-consuming. We don't want to go through all that again. We want third-party research against third-party research, not first-party opinions against second-party opinions. There is absolutely no other way to get forward. Olaf Stephanos
I advise you to take a look at the footnotes in Wikipedia article on Bahá'í Faith. Now, I'm not really a big fan of that particular religion. Nevertheless, I can see that the article is very good and relying on high-quality research, even though the faith itself might be controversial, and its adherents are even persecuted in many Islamic countries. In fact, this article is featured. In order to make the Falun Gong articles featured, we need a similar approach. The sources must be of equivalent quality, and other criteria on featured articles must be met. That is our sincere wish. If you can contribute to that goal, you will make a good editor, regardless of your personal POV. Olaf Stephanos 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring on Falun Gong[edit]

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

TigerShark (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous advice[edit]

I've decided to reply to your mail on-wiki, so that we can show we working as above-board as possible here. You should know that there's a report about your blog post on the administrator's noticeboard. (You've probably seen the same post at Talk:Falun Gong, but there are some different comments here.) With that in mind, it's probably best to present ourselves in the best manner possible. I believe that you're on the right side of this debate, and so we should be able to fix things by sticking to policies. I do believe that policy is on our side here; the problem has just been that the article is heavily protected by pro-FG editors. Wider interest should help rectify the situation.

If you haven't already, I'd strongly recommend you read up on the core policies of Wikipedia. Most important to this situation are Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Related to your blog posts is the guideline on canvassing. I'd also like to point out the page on single-purpose accounts, which I believe applies strongly to many of the Falun Gong defenders you've faced. The problem with such editors is that they're here for the specific purpose of defending/promoting FG, rather than building an encyclopedia and following its policies where they might lead. I can see this behavior in how their trying to abuse policies such as undue weight to segregate all criticism to a separate article.

As for some more specific advice, I'd recommend you try to back off on reverting a bit. For instance, in the recent case of wikilinks, it's not really worth fighting over. Here, I'd actually lean towards leaving some of those in. The purpose of links is to lead readers to other articles they might be interested in, not to simply define words for them. For instance, when a religion page talks about morality, readers might be interested in going to that page so they can see comparative views on it - not simply to read up on the definition.

In general, edit warring doesn't do any good. What's best, if a conflict comes up, is to present your case clearly on the talk page and talk it out there. If you can prove that any reversions of your edits would be in bad faith, then the reversions likely won't occur. If they do, then you'll likely find support in reverting them.

As I mentioned before, off-wiki canvassing is generally frowned upon. If you believe an article would benefit from neutral eyes, then there are a few appropriate paths you could take. For a look at the article as a whole, you can request Peer review. For answers to a specific issue, you can file a request for comment. If there are behavioral problems involved, you can post a message at the administrators' noticeboard.

I think that's enough for now. Good luck, and thank you for your efforts to help improve Wikipedia. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I have much to learn. I have learned only in the past few days what a social thing Wikipedia can be. I am aware of NPOV. But arriving alone in FG land I believed that the only realistic chance I had of making the article slightly more NPOV was to leave all the propaganda untouched and simply add material with a different perspective. I believe I have now learned a way to change the article in a much more fundamental way.
As for "canvassing" on my blog, I was not aware that this would be frowned upon, and I did it in the most public way available to me -- far more so than in this conversation, actually. I believe that the pro-FG guys are coordinating their efforts by e-mail, on-line forums etc. I could have done so too with a bunch of skeptical buddies, and none the wiser. I could also have gone around to the Scientology article and recruited a bunch of skeptics via their talk pages, with much the same results. So the importance of the distinction isn't all that clear to me.
Anyway, I look forward to remaining a productive contributor to all manner of subjects in this encyclopedia, which I use daily.
Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry too much, it doesn't look like you'll be in any trouble for mentioning this on your blog. Wikipedia has a policy about being lenient towards newcomers. However, to be clear, any method of attracting people to an article with the hope that they'll support a particular point of view falls under "canvassing" here, so the fact that the distinction isn't clear to you is simply because there isn't one. The only difference is whether it's visible or not. Private correspondance often goes unreported, and so no one gets in trouble for it, even though it's arguably worse than public messages. There's not much that can be done about that, however.
On this article, it honestly looks to me like it needs a massive rewrite. It's been defended so strongly that all outside views have been stripped out of it. Proper style here would have them placed throughout the article as appropriate, rather than allowing it to simply be a way for FG to describe itself with outside views sequestered. But, a massive rewrite isn't likely to go over well, so we'll have to work gradually. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the preferred non-canvassing way to attract a large number of new editors to a defended POV article? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, there are a few options. In addition to those I already mentioned, you could appeal for help at a relevent Wikiproject, such as Wikiproject Religion or Wikiproject China. Just make sure that your request is presented neutrally. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Survival of the sickest[edit]

Hi, You proposed to delete the book summary article "Survival of the sickest". What is the reason youd'd like to delete the aricle? The article just summarizes the content of the book. Whom and how many are interested reading the book should not be the deciding factor what is in the article. I propose that only who read the book should edit the article. I do not see any rational for the proposal of the deletion. Ervinn (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't suggested that the article should be deleted. That was Crusio. I think it should be improved and make mention of the criticism the book has met with, not just describe in great detail what it is about. I read and reviewed the book last year. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron[edit]

Barnstar search rescue.png Hello, Mrund. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<.

Ikip (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your copy and paste move[edit]

I have reverted your copy-and-paste move of Vadstena and Mariedamm bracteates to Vadstena bracteate. Please don't move articles by copying and pasting since that makes it very difficult for other editors to study the page's edit history.--Berig (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't just a move, I corrected the text extensively too. The reason that I moved it is that the "and Mariedamm" bit is wrong. Please reinstate what I did. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want to move over a redirect, but are unable to, you should ask an administrator to do so for you. Would you care to explain in what way the "and Mariedamm" bit is wrong?--Berig (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I wrote in the updated version of the article:
"The Motala bracteate has been struck with the same die and was found nearby in the same province, Östergötland, in 1906. When it reached the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities, however, it was erroneously catalogued as deriving from Mariedamm in the adjoining province Närke (Nä 10). This misattribution lives on sporadically in the literature. Another persistent misconception regarding the Vadstena bracteate (probably also inspired by the 1906 find) is that two identical bracteates have found in that town, bringing the total number of copies to three."
The reason that I'm editing this article is that I am writing a book on that very period in Östergötland. Thus I have had reason to read through the literature recently and see the confusion.
Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I understand. I'll add your edits and move the article for you.--Berig (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Just leave me a note if there's anything else I can help you with.--Berig (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientology[edit]

Have you seen this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision I am truly awed. There they have to deal with a family of over 430 articles, and what looks like over 30 disruptive editors. I think we have it easy in comparison :) The only issue is that here we don't have as much administrators' attention. So it's usually a few concerned average joe editors like you and myself that try to bring up the frequent abuses - but because we don't have to time to constantly monitor, report etc, we get discouraged and just leave. Quite sad, really. Colipon+(T) 17:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, the cost in wiki work hours of that is just scary. But it's heartening to see that it actually got done. The FG supporters probably aren't messing with as many articles in as many fields as the Hubbardites. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Come to see the progress made at Talk:Falun Gong, you may want to offer your input. Colipon+(T) 15:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I haven't got your address, but google me and you'll find mine. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :) Colipon+(Talk) 05:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I am filing an arbitration enforcement case against this user. The temp version is located here. Will need your back up on this case. Colipon+(Talk) 16:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool, I'm with you. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

FG repository[edit]

I've started a repository of underused and potentially useful links for use in the Falun Gong articles. Please feel free to paste links there with a description of what they refer to, for easy relocation. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(its's here: User:Ohconfucius/FG repository‎ /Seb az86556 (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Seb az86556 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

PennyB source[edit]

Hi Martin, Do you know where can I find the full article for mentioned in this ref? [3] Benjamin Penny]: Life and Times of Li Hongzhi, CJO. The China Quarterly (2003), 175:643-661 Cambridge University Press; doi:10.1017/S0305741003000389, I would very much like to read it. For example you said: "Unless a Chinese white-collar family can be poverty-stricken and remain white-collar", actually it did cross my mind that the two are not mutually exclusive. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the article behind a $15 US paywall. The abstract is available for free though. Maybe you know someone, or some library, with a subscription to the on-line journals of Cambridge University Press? I haven't got one. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev enforcement case[edit]

Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here. You might like to comment. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

yay[edit]

"drive-by shooting"...very nice Seb az86556 (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I just think the guy's caused enough damage. Thinking of all the wikiwork hours his antics have eaten up makes me sad. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

February 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Falun Gong. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Asdfg12345 04:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident[edit]

Thanks for this. You may not have noticed the editor made quite a few non-NPOV edits to the article. It is now back at the last good version. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Asdfg12345 13:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're wasting your time, Asdfg. Do something constructive instead. I hear the articles about birds in China might benefit from your attention, for example. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC/User on PCPP[edit]

Hello. Please be aware that I have opened an RfC about the conduct of PCPP (talk · contribs).--Asdfg12345 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI on Dilip rajeev[edit]

Note that I've made an outline of Dilip's recent editing behavior here.--PCPP (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that[edit]

"The fact is that Falun Gong practicioners [sic] tend to believe that everyone who is not for them is against them, and thus a CCP agent or sympathiser." I'm sorry you have that impression. That's not what I think. I brought an RfC about PCPP because of his constantly deleting sourced content, little else. I'm sorry that you did not look at the facts and make your evaluation based on them. I also wish to point out that you misrepresented my stance. --Asdfg12345 08:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

New Arbitration Enforcement case: Dilip rajeev[edit]

Kindly note the WP:AE case above has just been filed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you help with a Human Rights in China Project?[edit]

Mrund, this is to request you to join http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Human_Rights_in_China. I sincerely believe you could contribute much in terms of content and research.Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Falun Gong moderated discussion[edit]

The Kilgor & Matas report deals with Chinese governmental suppression of Falun Gong in a partisan way. To avoid a POV fork, we should not have a separate article about the report. Instead, there should just be a re-direct to the page about the history of Falun Gong, for which the report is an important source document. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In order for the discussion to progress unhindered I have asked people not to comment directly on the talkpage but to raise any concerns they have with me. SilkTork *YES! 08:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of Ƿōden[edit]

Your edit here was wrong. Ƿ is not a D, just the same as Q is not an O, β is not a ß, and 3 is not a Ȝ. It is the letter wynn, which was used in English, as seen in Bēoƿulf, used for the /w/ sound. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 18:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Grinding grooves in Gotland[edit]

Please look at astronomical calendars in Gotland. It seems clear that their interpretation as a calendar is highly suspect. The grooves undoubtedly exist. Are they worth writing up properly? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, the calendar interpretation is a completely discredited piece of 1980s local amateur fantasy. The consensus view of the grooves is that they are industrial features from the High Middle Ages. I suggest you run the Swedish Wikipedia article through Google Translate. And obviously there should be no article whatsoever in English Wikipedia titled "astronomical calendars in Gotland". Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

fyi[edit]

User talk:Bazj#Astronomical calendars on Gotland Bazj (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. If there are any outstanding questions regarding ancient Gotland or other Scandinavian provinces, just give me a shout. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

EAA statement as scientific consensus[edit]

You probably missed my comments on this at Talk:Bosnian_pyramid_hoax [4]:

I'm concerned that we're taking the EAA statement as scientific consensus. We've some experts that monitor these articles and I'd like to hear their opinions on this.


I'm not sure that we should say this is a hoax, based upon EAA statement, or any of the other reference, as changed with these recent edits. What do others think? What other articles do we have that use "hoax" in this manner under similar circumstances? --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The declaration is short, unreferenced, and certainly isn't a scientific position statement or other generally recognizable publication that identifies scientific consensus. Isn't it just a call to halt the '“pyramid” project'? Perhaps other statements were made elaborating on the situation?

I had hoped that experts such as yourself might respond. I was going to take it to WP:ARCHAEO, but that got delayed by all the drama. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I can see not to call Osmanagic's pyramids a hoax is that he may actually harbour a completely deluded belief in them. But no professional archaeologist shares that belief. And "Bosnian pyramids nationalist delusion" would not make a good article title. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
You've made that clear.
Could you address my questions? --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
What do others think? See above. What other articles do we have that use "hoax" in this manner under similar circumstances? I don't know and I don't know how to search for a word only in article titles on Wikipedia. Isn't it just a call to halt the '“pyramid” project'? That's the main errand of the EAA statement, but it does call the project a hoax. Perhaps other statements were made elaborating on the situation? Other official EAA statements? Not to my knowledge. But if you mean other archaeologists commenting on the project, see the footnotes of the Wikipedia article. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving pages during RM[edit]

Hi Martin, please don't move articles which are the subject of an RM. A closing administrator, or another uninvolved, qualified editor, will assess consensus and then move or not move as appropriate. The page should especially not be moved by an editor involved in the discussion itself. Also, there is certainly not "unanimous support" for the Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis title. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologise. Is this a "Requested Move" when the move took place a week ago? I'm confused. Must every move be preceded by a formal RM process? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Not every move. Pages are often moved without an RM, and can stay moved if unchallenged. The difference here is the controversy at the talk-page; though I personally support your move, we've not yet generated a clear consensus. The first move (to "hoax") was simply bold editing; it could have been reverted as controversial or non-consensual, but it wasn't. Haploidavey (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The request was placed a week ago, but discussion is ongoing. In theory, an RM closes after a week, but with the extended backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves, it has been taking longer in practice for a while now. No hard feelings—looks like this was an honest mistake.
And Haploidavey is right; generally speaking, it's fine to be bold with moves. But not if the move could be controversial. See WP:RM, and especially WP:RMCM for more on moving pages, and feel free to drop me a line on my talk page with any questions. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I'm sure the pyramid article will find a reasonable title eventually. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Eventually... it did. Whether or not it remains so, who knows? But pro tem at least, the article no longer leaves me feeling inexplicably discomforted. Well done. Haploidavey (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! It seems that the guy isn't pumping out publicity like he used to, so fewer people may feel motivated to muck around with the article. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can you vet an article for me please?[edit]

I wound up writing Anthropomorphic wooden cult figurines of Central and Northern Europe (one of our catchier titles, I know) - it's in large part based on de:Anthropomorphe Pfahlgötter, but I've imported few of their refs that I was unable to check (in particular I actually got Die Germanen: Geschichte und Kultur der germanischen Stämme in Mitteleuropa. Ein Handbuch in zwei Bänden via interlibrary loan and examined Günter Behm-Blancke's typology as set out there), and I've added a lot of others. However, this is very much on the edge of my expertise, and there's a startling lack of coverage of the religious evidence as a whole in the English-language archaeological survey works, so I wonder if I can ask you to look at it and see whether anything is radically stupid, or whether there are any holes that need to be filled? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting subject! I'll have a look. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Feel free to note anything on which I need to do further reading. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anthropomorphic wooden cult figurines of Central and Northern Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Qingtian County may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • monsoon climate. Annual average temperature 18.3 degrees. Annual rainfall {convert|1747|mm|abbr=on}}. Hilly territory with many ravines. The county administration is based in [[Lishui, Zhejiang|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Pokémon (252–319), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swedish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Mrund. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)