User talk:Rigley/Archive 7

Hi
Hi Shrigley, Please don't revert my (or anyone's) edits when you have a question. I can understand a revert if it's blant falsehood or vandalism but this was not. Thanks. To answer your question, I don't currently have a direct source document to cite now, but I know personally from going to school there that ROC (textbooks) did refer to mainland as Occupied, and as the history of China and Chinese Civl War articles described the war too. I will revert now add a citation requested/pending tag until I or someone locates a citation. Mistakefinder (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shrigley, made some changes and added citations. Better? Mistakefinder (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know how else would I substantiate the feeling of fear by Taiwanese other than personal feeling, personal interviews of other fellow Taiwanese, and also reading Taiwanese media coverage on the subject which indicated fear and worry. Of course the degree of fear is different for different people, and the perceived level of threat depended on the political environment which is on-going. What do you suggest? Mistakefinder (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the fear aspect sentence.Mistakefinder (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Btw, Merry Christmas!

Tuva Task Force
If you wish to include the Tuvan topics in WikiProject Mongols, you are free to do so, but I do not understand why you have moved the Tuva Task Force to WikiProject Mongols without discussion and removed the WikiProject Central Asia tag from the talk pages. WikiProject Mongols is too narrowly focused and does not adequately reflect the Tuva Task Force. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Tuvans are not Mongols and I refuse to get into a debate about it. I am not removing the WikiProject Mongols banner. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The status of Tuva is another thing, but in any case, it's surely recommended to have a proper discussion before such move which may be highly controversial. In general, the more proper discussions had done, the less disputes there may be. Furthermore, I'd like to say Happy New Year to you as well. Thanks! --Chinyin (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In any case, thanks for your contributions. --Chinyin (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Your last edit to Banned Items in China
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! I appreciate your hard work, and see that you are being Bold, this is actively encouraged on wikipedia. Unfornutately, I don't agree with your recent edits to List of banned items in China and have reverted them. It's usually a good idea to bring up any issues you have with an article on the article's talk page. (It's a tab at the top left of the article that says Discussion) That way, consensus can be reached and the article can be corrected, if needed. Thanks again and have a merry Christmas! Ncboy2010 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

English (transferred from my talk page)
I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Shrigley (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How I communicate on my personal talk (in contrast e.g. to the talk page of WP Mongols) is up to me. This is not a general forum. As a member of WP Mongols, some command of Mongolic would be appropriate for you anyway. But unless there is an important issue, you are not welcome to spam my talk page. G Purevdorj (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's better to mention that personal talk page is also an integral part of Wikipedia and thus subject to the policy of Wikipedia. Sure it can appear slightly more "personal" than public talk pages, but still intended to base on the spirit and guideline of WP. The inclusion of specific subjects or topics in the project is a different issue however; we can of course try to discuss such problems in the (project) talk pages, but it is certainly not whether they are considered appropriate for specific project member(s) or not, and also please try to discuss them in advance in case of significant changes (esp. those that may be controversial), and the project as a whole will handle them accordingly per WP guideline. --Chinyin (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you explain this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%E8%99%9E%E6%B5%B7#WikiProject_Mongols

Gantuya eng (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have to, since that's between two users that have nothing to do with me. Plus, they weren't breaking any other Wikipedia rules in the process. Can you explain this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gantuya_eng&diff=prev&oldid=272931606 Let me help you explain. You and others were openly canvassed by G Purevdorj in Mongolian to help him win an AfD, because he thought that no one else would realize it because it wasn't in English. That's why I put the "WP:USEENGLISH" notice on his talk page, not yours, nor Chinyin's, or any other person who might occasionally lapse into their native language. Because G Purevdorj has a history of using Mongolian, essentially, when he wants to do shady stuff. Shrigley (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, you seemed to have been talking about my message. Note that that was the *extremely* rare (or the only) occasion I had used non-English statement within English message in a talk page at English Wikipedia. That was a very special case and note that even in that occasion it was mainly written in English, instead of largely or even entirely written in another language. On the other hand, it is probably much easier to find messages written in Mongolian etc (probably long) before that of my message in English Wikipedia. Furthermore, while it might be possible for anyone to *occasionally* lapse into their native language (as mentioned above), by now I have already translated it to be *fully* written in English (and yes I will also continue to write English messages in talk pages per English WP guideline), while on the contrary none of the non-English messages you had written in talk pages had been translated to English. No, it is not really necessary to translate these existing non-English messages in talk pages (nor had requested to do so), but it is indeed better for everyone to follow the guideline in WP, including the WP:SPEAKENGLISH policy in English Wikipedia.--Chinyin (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Shringley: I did not know about the policy of canvassing at that time (as became clear within the discussion), and the issue itself (with which you might have been fairly sympathetic) was outragious (ending in a fair, if not really satisfactory compromise). But given that it was Ganaa who started to write in Mongolian at that occassion, your comment is quite pointless. Even though, I won't bother to comment on this issue a third time. I am fairly certain we will meet on talk pages when the need arises to restrain your edits, but spending my time on such issues on talk pages is fairly close to wasting it. (Chinyin: When I specifically address comments to a Mongolian editor, using Mongolian IS more natural. This can sometimes also become a problem in everyday conversation, but I do there so as well. I do think that I will continue in this vain.) G Purevdorj (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure everyone knows what the WP:SPEAKENGLISH policy in English Wikipedia is really about, I'm copying the exact text from Talk page guidelines here:
 * Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, or where, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so and cannot, you should either find a third party to translate or to contact a translator through the Embassy.
 * Note that it only applies to English Wikipedia talk pages, not in everyday conversation or so. Also note that it is quite normal (and also natural) to have certain established rule(s) in (and specific to) certain environments, but we should always try to follow the rules or policies as we become aware of them (it is usually a good practice for anyone to find out at least the *common* rules/policies established in this environment when he/she first came to it, although it may also be possible for anyone to unknowingly break certain (probably more special) rules/policies in such environment; but once he/she becomes aware of such rules or policies he/she should always try to avoid those actions from happening (again), although it is usually also considered a good behavior to try to fix (at least some of) of the "bad" things he/she had done before when he/she was not really aware of such rules/policies). --Chinyin (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * G Purevdorj, I saw you again wrote non-English messages in your user talk page when replying another user's message. The other user's message may not be entirely in English (yet also not entirely in Mongolian), but since you now know the WP:SPEAKENGLISH policy in English Wikipedia, you are supposed to point out the issue to him directly (and politely), so that everyone will follow the policy, instead of writing your reply also in Mongolian (and in fact your message was written completely in Mongolian, whereas his original message was only partially like so). The established rules/policies in English Wikipedia are supposed to be respected and followed by every editor in English WP, and no one should consider himself/herself to have the privilege to be excepted from such rules or policies. --Chinyin (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes". Thank you. --PCPP (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy closure of WikiProject_China/Uyghurs workgroup Mfd
Regarding the speedy closure of your Mfd, please see the discussion i have just started here. Thanks. -- Klein zach  11:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Yasukuni Shrine has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Partial revert? No. What you did was a full revert with a new piped link. Besides, that IP's addition was NNPOV. Please do not restore it.Thank you Oda Mari (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't only insert a piped link. I also removed the opinionated words in the text that made the insertion "NNPOV"- "horrendous" crimes, "grevious" atrocities, etc. Mention of the controversy at all is actually an essential part of NPOV. I've continued the talk page discussion that you and your co-reverters seem to have ignored. Shrigley (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Difference between Fascism and Communism
Communism is a economic ideology developed my Karl Marx in 1840 and aims at a Classless, Money less, state.

Fascism goes against this entirely.

But, I will go on...

China is NOT Communist. China is more capitalist then the united states. It isn't even Socialist! Its all American Propaganda that China is Communist. I don't know why, but America HATES Communism and will go to any lengths to demonize it.

Soviet Union is NOT Communist, either. As in UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS?

North Korea = Extension of China.

Vietnam - Read "China". — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCCullens (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Northeast Asian Kingdom
Btw, what the hell is NE Asian Kingdom? Back then there was no such thing as NE Asian, the only NE Asian Kingdom around 1,000 years ago were all Korean Kingdoms. Malgal never have their own kingdoms but they're just chiefdom state under Goguryeo and Balhae. Why isn't Qing dynasty and Japanese states as NE Asian kingdoms??? You see how naive your edit? --KSentry(talk) 11:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan guideline
I think that sounds like the best way to handle it. I doubt it ever really had a consensus. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Sino-Xiongnu War
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Some help needed (South Tibet)
Hi, I have proposed a disambiguation page for South Tibet, based on 4 possible definitions. So far I have only found references in the English litterature for the first two definitions (both dealing with the southern part of Tibet, essentially the Brahmaputra valley), but I couldn't find any reliable source about the last two definitions dealing with the areas currently administered by India.

As you have written at Talk:South Tibet dispute that the term is precise and common enough in the literature (referring to the geographically and culturally Tibetan region that is occupied by India, and which has no name other than "South Tibet"), I would appreciate if you could help by giving some litterature references where the term is precisely discribing "South Tibet" with the definition you have proposed. This would help finalizing the disambiguation page. Thank you.--Pseudois (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: China linguistic map source
I uploaded the image in 2004, so I don't quite remember it, but I presume I found it somewhere on the CIA website for me to tagged it as such (given the image itself doesn't list the source). CIA.gov is inaccessible for me at the moment, but see https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/China.html --Jiang (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is another possible source http://lib.utexas.edu/maps/china.html but at quick glance I don't see the 1990 version there.--Jiang (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to trust a CIA publication at face value unless we find some other reliable source that says otherwise.--Jiang (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jiang. The CIA map (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/maps/791363.jpg) looks reasonably accurate and includes the various areas I have mentioned in my previous comments.--Pseudois (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute
As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Romanization @ Template:Infobox Chinese
Hello, I've replied to your inquary, please see Template talk:Infobox Chinese alanbird (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Balhae Kingdom
Please note, Balhae's archeological evidence and their founding history suggests they're indeed Korean, and their last ruling clan fled to another Korean kingdom, and their descendants still lives in modern Korea. If you have strong argument against to this please present valid archeological & genetic sample to prove me wrong.--KSentry(talk) 00:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit war at Nanking Massacre
Please explain why I was slapped with an Edit War message for Nanking Massacre when  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 01:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I still haven't broken 3RR.
 * 2) You haven't placed a similar message on the talk pages of the other participants.


 * I reverted twice, which is the exact same number as User:Cold Season
 * User:Cold Season has a history of reverting "genocide" from multiple users edits (check the edit history)
 * It wasn't me alone, there were IPs being reverted as well (albeit with inflammatory comments in the edit summary)
 * You're still making this "Edit War" one-sided by only slapping me with the template. It sure doesn't make you look impartial.  Do you think you can defend your actions I go looking for arbitration?  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 02:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You can't count my first edit, as it was two days ago and even Cold Comfort hasn't attempted to revert it. It was a separate edit.
 * I'm not going to continue this conversation with you, as you are clearly being impartial (and accusing people of "threatening" you), and not looking for ways to solve the problem.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 03:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This whole kerfuffle was solved to the satisfaction of the parties actually involved. Taking sides without taking part is the height of pointlessness.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 00:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit warring specifically states, inter alia, that "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times", so please go easy. Just because you only did it twice doesn't mean you haven't been engaged in edit warring. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan
Could you explain and justify the following edit please Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I stand corrected. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

NPA
In running through the discussion again on the Bo Xilai page, I also noticed this "I likewise tire of followers of small religiopolitical movements adding large amounts of poorly-sourced protest material to the biographies of provincial Chinese officials, but my feelings are irrelevant to the discussion." I think this is unacceptable. It's the third or fourth time I've seen you or others cast such aspersions on Homunculus, accusing him or her of being a Falun Gong practitioner, pushing a pro-Falun Gong agenda on Wikipedia. (Accusing or openly suspecting someone of having some or other belief obviously isn't normally a problem, nor would be holding whatever kind of belief one wished, but in this context the intent is clear and it can only be construed as an unfounded attack on Homunculus's reputation and motives.) It degrades our discourse. The equivalent would be Homunculus calling you a paid Communist Party agent, or a "50 center." How would you like that? Unless you apologize and say you will not continue the aspersions, I intend to gather together the other examples and present this to ANI or perhaps AE. It's up to you. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Shrigley; I actually don't want to escalate this and didn't mean to make it into a battle. I respect your views and respect you as an editor. I thought the remarks against Homunculus because of political differences were inappropriate. You wrote in your note that your remark " I likewise tire of followers of small religiopolitical movements ..." was not directed at Homunculus, and that it was directed at Asdfg12345, a FLG person banned? How could you tire of someone who has long been banned? Or directed to an IP? I can't see an IP adding "large amounts of poorly-sourced protest material" to the Bo page recently? Anyway, if it was not directed at Homunculus, then I apologize for misconstruing you. In either case, I don't want to turn a molehill into a mountain. You've on several occasions made similar oblique references, seeming to divine Homunculus' political affiliations or something. He has obviously been too polite to pick you up on it. I don't think his remark was necessarily helpful either, but he didn't give you a political label - which is the difference. I only drew the comparison as an example, of what would be the opposite label. I obviously wasn't calling you those things, and I'm sure you know that. I just think that level of discourse is disruptive. I see no reason to take this further if it stops here. Happy editing. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

User:John Cruel
I knew this guy was a SPA account when I first saw it, and I though he was only a one time vandal. But I did not realize he was a sock who vandalized the article before. John Cruel is adding unsourced and fake racial slurs against cantonese here. After he reverted me the second time, I looked further into the edit history of the article, and found out that he is in fact a sock of this Isuzu1001 user you have dealt with before. You need to file a sockpuppet investigation at the sockpuppet place and get this guy blocked, because he is going to revert me again. (I found you on User talk:Isuzu1001's talk page.)Beajhure (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Frysun
Appears to be changing the Chinese terms for Tibet around. While "藏区" (Tibet Area) is a valid term for Tibet, I doubt it is as direct of a translation as "西藏" is, and it does seem slightly more Sinocentric to have it as the first Chinese name listed at Tibet. GotR Talk 17:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

AE
Please see here. I'm sorry about this. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 opened
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 16, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong 2 evidence submissions
Please note this supplementary information regarding evidence submissions from drafting arbitrator Elen of the Roads. All parties submitting evidence are reminded that claims must be supported by diffs at all times. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Falung Gong 2 evidence phase deadline
This is a reminder that all evidence in the Falung Gong 2 case should be submitted here by Saturday the 16th of June. For the Arbitration Committee Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Shrigley, I think you will find this helpful. Best wishes, Sans6 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Rape in Northeast India for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rape in Northeast India is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Rape in Northeast India until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. KTC (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
NW ( Talk ) 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong
Mate, I can see that you edit a lot chinese-related pages, which is fine. But the recent changes you made to the page Hong Kong, deleting many British Hong Kong related materials is intolerable. I know you were trying to improve the article but many of those images showed sufficient references and information for readers. There was no reason for deletion whatsoever, therefore I undid some of the changes you made. I assume it was your personal preference to delete them, but please bear in mind this encyclopedia is for everybody so information and images related to an article give readers a better understanding of the page.Cheerio. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Altaic languages
There is a discussion going on at Template:Altaic languages that you might want to chime in on. --Taivo (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese diacritics
Since you posted at Talk:Banh bo, you might be interested in a similar discussion at Talk:Com_tam. Kauffner (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Article of possible interest
I think you might find Ilaria Sala's review of Falun Gong: The End of Days, published as "Cult Status," in the Far Eastern Economic Review, 28 October 2004, volume 167, issue 43, pp. 68-69 interesting. If you cannot access it yourself, feel free to drop me an e-mail and I can forward it to you. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've forwarded it. Check your e-mail. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and do me a favor
I've replied to both you and SoundFury in my own talk, thank you.

Please review the edits I've made recently, is there any violate any WP standards? I've commented in talk extensively about edits I propse, and have reached agreement with editor TheSoundAndTheFurry on some of these edits (for example the POV pushing "we were not paid" edit made by certain editor was removed after discussion in talk.) But feel free critique my edits, improve them. All I am looking for in these articles is a little balance of facts towards NPOV, that is all. Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the spelling of Vietnamese names
RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 closed
An arbitration case regarding Falun Gong has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Homunculus is banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces, for a period of one year.
 * 2) Ohconfucius is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces.
 * 3) At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, editors may be placed on mandated external review for all articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed. Editors on mandated external review must observe the following restrictions on editing within the designated subject area:
 * 4) Any major edit (defined as any edit that goes beyond simple and uncontroversial spelling, grammatical, and/or stylistic corrections to article content) must be proposed on the article's talk page. This proposal must be discussed by interested editors until a consensus to make the edit is formed.
 * 5) Once consensus has been reached in support of the edit, the proposal must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor for neutrality and verifiability of the information presented.
 * 6) When approval is received from the uninvolved editor, the editor subject to mandated external review may make the edit to the article. Violations of these restrictions may be reported to Arbitration Enforcement.
 * 7) Upon the expiry of the applicable ban, Homunculus is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
 * 8) Should the applicable ban be lifted, Ohconfucius is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
 * 9) Colipon is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)