User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive42

Locking Suppression of Falun Gong page
Hello, can you please explain the reason that you locked that page just now? I am aware of the long history of unconstructive edit wars, and so I would understand if you did not have the time or think it worthwhile to look into the reasons behind the latest, but at the same time I think that if you had done so you would have found that at this time we are engaged in a more positive and wikifriendly (can I say that?) approach to editing the articles. I would like to draw attention to the blanking and what I consider rather hostile additions of unsourced and quite biased content by Samuel Luo:

"Critics of the Chinese government, who are unaware of the Falun Gong's attacks against critics in China before the ban and the cultish nature of this group, has suggested it was the Zhongnanhai demonstration of April 25 that led to 'fear, animosity and suppression'.[1]"

that [1] is a reference to "American Asian Review, Vol. XIX, no. 4, Winter 2001, p. 12" - where the final words come from.

This paragraph replaces a photo of an alleged victim of the Chinese governments campaign, as well as several paragraphs of neutrally presented material drawn from academic journals. Another graphic image was removed, too.

It is probably not your role to get involved in the substance of what I am saying, but I just want to point a few things out. These are not my opinions, I am just describing the editing behaviour of Samuel Luo. So, in the end I feel that you did not need to lock the page. One editor was behaving poorly and breaking rules, and others were resisting it. It's a really clear cut case. Had you left the page unlocked I think maybe he would have given up after a little while. I will try to do some mediation or something. It is rather problematic editing and stunts growth of the articles. No attempts at discussion were made on the edit pages. My reason for communicating with you is to request that in simple cases like this that you do not lock the page, as it prevents us from adding anything further to the articles. Sorry if I am not supposed to bother you with this, and you just did what you were supposed to. There must be other avenues for dealing with this kind of behaviour. I will ask around. I am a little new to wikipedia. Thanks --Asdfg12345 01:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Movie
Did you at least watch the video?--209.137.175.59 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work on my machine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin
I would have thought, simply, that I'm too much of an aggressive cunt to be an admin. But that's just my humble opinion. michael talk 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. chin up. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Frater Xyzzy
He's still causing problems, not only is he engaging in personal attacks here, he's got a sympathizer jumping on board something she has no clue about. He doesn't understand that I wanted to note that the IP was Frater, and that the IP was used when he was blocked - it's one less way Xyzzy can use a sock on WP. Anyhow, since Xyzzy was the IP, that means he rm'ed the prod off the article he started in the first place w/o disclosure (He edited as an anon user, and clearly had a vested interest). He then tried to create a problem on the AfD of said article as the anon by claiming COI because Masons were voting and not disclosing (we all have userboxes, BTW). He has since gone back to the AfD and changed the IP edit comments to his username (thus obliterating the dates), and has disclosed he is the author, as well as voting on said AfD. In the latest edit summary, he again accuses the Masonic editors of lack of disclosure see the history). I'm really not sure how much more disruptive he needs to be to be bliocked, but he's certainly toeing a lot of lines as far as I'm concerned. MSJapan 04:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he's bent the rules again by evading his block and I wouldn't be surprised if he was evading the technology anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't work out what is going on here. Why have you reblocked this user? User:Theresa knott 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, he was originally blocked after Requests for arbitration/Starwood raised some issues and Dmcdevit and UC showed that they were linked, initially. Given the editing patterns, there was also suspicion that these guys had multiple computers or were meatpuppets of some banned users. So I blocked Frater Xyzzy. It turns out he was evading that block, as he later admitted using an IP, and then re-signed the IP address using his username. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You missed the fact that his original block was invalid, since a RFCU proved that he was not a sock, which was the reason for his unblock. You should unban him again, MSJ mislead you by leaving out the reason the Xyzzy account was unbanned, and presented it as a simply block evasion.  Seraphim  21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * More info. MSJ went admin shopping for this re-block on the morning of the 4th, as you can see by his posts on various admin talk pages, here, here, and here, then after 11hrs passed and none of those admins agreed to re-block him he posted here asking you for a reblock.  The fact that 3 admins, including WMC who is known for his agressive policy on blocks decided not to block him, and another admin Theresa knott came here asking for reasoning as to why you reblocked him, should be a red flag.  Also i'd like to point out that his anon ip editing consisted of him asking quite a few times for someone to RFCU him to get his main account cleared, someone evading a block wouldn't go back and re-sign all their old stuff especially when in a massive content dispute with an obsessive wikilawyer like MSJ. Please re-evaluate your block on him.  Seraphim  21:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware he was cleared, but my first block occurred after I asked UninvitedCompany and Dmcdevit to RFCU him with JA and a link was discovered. So my block was technically merited when I encated it. It is one thing to appeal properly, but to circumvent the system vigilante style is not acceptable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My only real problem is the fact that MSJ admin shopped around to find someone to re-block him. After 3 admins (including WMC) declined to block him you decided to.  That's what bugs me.  Seraphim  05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the other admins aren't really aware of his history. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was looking at Category:Requests for unblock on a lazy Friday afternoon and noticed. You blocked him/her twice - once as a sock and once for block evasion. The RFCU cited cited on the talk page states that the two users are unrelated. Could you examine the block and, if you still believe it to be proper, for my edification, help me to understand it? Thank you. --BigDT 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Whilst he was waiting for a follow-up check, he evaded the original block. At the time, the original block was based on CU info from Dmcdevit and UC. That's why I reblocked him. There's a bigger chunk right above you. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Thanks enormously for that wonderful co-nom. I hope the RFA passes, it would be a pity for you to have wasted such a great nom on a failed RFA. Ah well. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 09:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a bit light for my standards. Check out User:Blnguyen/RfA. I nearly freaked out when I saw this message as it sounded as though the RfA might be derailed.... Things are looking up I hope. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said to Jaranda, I'm sorry if it feels as though I wasted your time by closing the RFA early, but I felt as though the RFA was on the downward spiral, in a big way. There are several things I think I need to to discuss with people about matters external, yourself included, but that can wait a bit. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording?

Adminship
I can't say that I am interested in becoming admin. It seems that admins just spend their time getting abused by vandals. I'm content to just work on whatever interests me and revert vandalism where I see it. Cheers. --Roisterer 09:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get much abuse. It's handy though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Semi-Protected Carnatic music page
Hi, with all due respect, I have posted the Dravidian topics template on that page. It seems that this is a POV tag team effort to keep removing it. Wiki Raja 06:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally talk pages aren't locked, but since people are warring on the talk pages over the template, it has been locked, so that you can discuss the merit on a talk page.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

on the darrell hair change
hi there Blnguyen -- I made a change to the Darrell Hair post this morning which I think accurately describes the umpire. I am a cricket lover based in South Africa and often change wikipedia posts. I do it via a mobile 3G card so it assigns a new IP or a generic IP so I am often identified as other users... so I have registered this time. I'd just like to take issue with you regarding your change, as I think he is a controversial man and has brought cricket into disrepute and also sowed division, whereas the wikipedia entry does not reflect this. So I do think we need to ackowledge this. I'll edit it again but perhaps I'll tone it down a little... I'd love to hear your reasons why you diagree with me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattattakk (talk • contribs) 07:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Hello. I'm well aware of the fact that everybody considers him to be "controversial", but under the policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL, we are told to not use words like that, but rather, simply describe the incidents that they were involved in, and who complained about it, what the results of the review were, etc. to simply state the Muralitharan incidents, and let the reader come to their own conclusions. The same would apply to the likes of Ranatunga, Murali, Shane Warne, Steve Randell, etc. Nobody says that Osama bin Laden, etc are controversial, even though they are because it is not in line with the encyclopedic protocol. If you are interested in participating WikiProject Cricket is looking out for new members, and a Quiz exists for a spot of fun. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Been an interesting week, trying (failing) to get a GA, trying (failing) to stop LightCurrent from earning himself an indef block and trying (probably failing) to settle User:Cricketguru in, but hey ho. Now that the dust has settled, I wondered what your plans were with regard to feeding back on my editor review? Cheers, --Dweller 13:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I should really get off my butt....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * lol --Dweller 09:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for unprotection of all Falun Gong articles
Hello BInguyen, I would ask you to unprotect the following articles: Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, Teachings of Falun Gong, and Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong. The most important reason behind the disputes that eventually lead to their protection was inadequate familiarity with the three Wikipedia policies, WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability, and WP:NPOV. The involved editors didn't understand the genuine yardstick for measuring what is acceptable and what is not. These issues have now been clarified on Talk:Falun Gong. From this day forward, we will strictly adhere to Wikipedia policies, penalize the vandals, and start constructing articles that comply with encyclopedic standards. We intend to tag all the original research and request admissible sources to back up the controversial statements. At the same time, we'll start introducing content from peer-reviewed journals and other verifiable secondary sources. The article on Li Hongzhi will be measured against WP:Biographies of living persons, and necessary changes will be made. Thanks for your help! ---Olaf Stephanos 22:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite a pro-FG view being aired currently on at least two of those four pages, I disagree with unblocking until Olaf vows not to abuse Wiki policies for his or his own views' benefit. Unfortunately his recent insistence on additional rules including his interpretation that all criticisms of FG are necessarily opinionated and violate both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are worrying.  This will lead to another edit war.  Until Olaf recognizes that even WPs can be misinterpreted and abused for one's own benefit and promises not to do this, there is little justification for unblocking the articles.  Jsw663 21:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, periodic outbursts of edit-warring and locking seem inevitable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Wiki Raja's images
Hi Blnguyen, Long time since we met. How have you been? Can you please take a look at all the images uploaded by the above user... I dont yet fully understand copyright issues for images, so I am not sure. But I think that almost all the images he's uploaded are copyvios. Please let me know what tags I should use to tag them. Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they look like copyvios. I will have to talk to him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Sarvagnya is on a capmaign against me. Because, I disagree with his POV he is doing everything he can to get me in trouble. As for the Dravidian topics template, there were no problems until Sarvagnya started removing parts of the items off the Dravidian topics template. We then got into a heated debate where he asked for sources to back my claims and in regards to the template. I have provided referenced sources every step of the way. On the other hand, Sarvagnya was not able to even show one source. He has also been engaged in personal attacks against me and against my ethnicity. Another administrator brought to our attention to perhaps change the name of the template from Dravidian topics to Dravidian and South Indian topics. I have agreed to do so. But, the others demanded it be called South Indian topics. Where is there any fair and balanced justice? It was only Sarvagnya and another user Gnanapiti who are against this template. If there are any violations of the template, please work with me and let me know how to go about it. Is it too many listings of topics? Or anything else? The sole purpose of this template is to link users to Dravidian related topics. Also, as an educational tool of interest to topics which are not heard of much or deserve attention. If there is anything I can do to fix this situation, please let me know. I have reported Sarvagnya for his incivility towards me and others here. I am sorry that it had to come to this. Kind regards. Wiki Raja 03:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are aspects of the template which are useful in separate pieces, but not in one single piece. For example, separate templates for South Indian dance, South Indian cinema, South Indian martial arts are OK, but to combine them with geography, ethnicity all at once, is pulling too many unrelated things together. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am still asking you about the legitimacy of those pictures. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I would like to take care of this picture situation. I have used the colored map (blue and yelow), from a book cover. As for the black and white map, I have taken that from one of the pages from a book. I am not an expert in these matters and would like to take care of this situation. Please tell me how to go about reporting where I got the pictures from in a correct format. If I am not allowed to use those pictures, I will be more than happy to draw out the maps. Next, on the Dravidian topics template. I understand the ever growing love amongst the Indian wikipedians for their country. However, there are people that are feeling threatened by that template including the map. That should not be the case. Dravidians are not only in South India, but are also in parts of Central India, parts of Sri Lanka, parts of Pakistan, and parts of Bangladesh. You see, this template is basically a linkage to various sites on various topics of different Dravidian civilizations (Kannadigas, Malayalees, Tamils, Telugus, Gonds, and Brahuis). Tamils are both in India and Sri Lanka, while the Brahuis are in Pakistan, and tha Malto are in Bangladesh. Dravidian is the same in classification structure as that of Malayo-Polynesian (Malays, Javanese, Timorese, Samoans, Tahitians, etc.) I hope you understand my explanation. If there is anything that is going against Wikipedia policy, I would like to clear that up. If having a Dravidian topics template goes against Wikipedia policy, then please tell me another way of doing this. Perhaps a Dravidian civilizations series template? Kind Regards. Wiki Raja 05:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at the template, there are similar groupings for similar dances, similar martial arts, cimilar scripts, similar music, similar language, geography. In a separate form, they may be alright, but together, they connect too many weakly connected materials, and would not stand. Separately, they may stand. Secondly, the maps, they are from books, so they are not permitted in this case, because they are not used to describe the textbook, but rather to use their cartography work for our purposes. So those cannot be allowed. So I would have to delete them. As for the artwork of the people, where did that come from? Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So, from what I understand is that this template is too broad? Would you say it would be like having a template on all Southeastasian topics? If so, perhaps can I create several different templates (Dravidian martial arts, Dravidian dance, Dravidian literature, etc.)? Also, I have no problem with you deleting the two maps. Can you explain to me what you mean by "artwork of the people"? Regards. Wiki Raja 05:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring to [[Image:Fireandice2.jpg]] and the other two similar pictures. Also that Lupin cartoon is definitely copyvio is it not? Unless you are the author of that cartoon. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, that picture with the people came from a site for the animated motion picture called Fire and Ice, some really good animation for the early 1980s. As for the Lupin III, no, I am not the author of that pic. Sorry, I am not really well acquainted with the policies on uploading pics. You can take those off if you want. In the future, if I upload any pics, can I come to you for advice on how to properly document them? Regards. Wiki Raja 06:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * May I ask if those dance photographs and animations were photographed or created by you? If they are not, please go back to the image pages and say where you got them from. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please point out which dance photographs (the bali dancer?) and animations you are talking about? Wiki Raja 06:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, almost all of them, the Bali dancers, other dancers, the animation of the martial arts. If they were not your photography, you have to say where you got them (if they are allowed). Also the scripts - where did you get them from. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is only one dance animation. All the martial arts, scripts, temples, and empires maps were taken off from Wikipedia. except for the bali dancer animation which was taken from the internet outside of Wikipedia. You are most welcome to remove the bali dancer too. Regards. Wiki Raja 06:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image
Hi, you deleted Hammill Silent.jpg on 5 Feb as an orphaned fair use image. But I had already linked it to a couple of articles a few days previously; see here and here. --Richardrj talkemail 08:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have restored it. Sorry. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. --Richardrj talkemail 08:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Moslow
Is it important to use the tag on filmographies that are not written in chronological order for example a tag that was added on Aishwariya Rai page and by reading the WP:LOW its hard to tell.Cometstyles 15:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:ball tampering contriversy
Okay thanks.I will tell the other users the article has already been written.Thanks for pointing it out.--Nadirali نادرالی

Re:India
''Could you please use the talk page to discuss the parts where you are concerned or change them directly on the main article. The article is a featured article which means it is supposed to be one of the best articles on WP, and it is also about a large ticket item, so please clarify the issues so that people can address them. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I simply added a template,nothing else.No changes.

The whole idea of India being a "liberal democracy" is disputed to editors like me and user:Unre4L.

If users don't agree on one subject,they then add the templte that describes the dispute.The reason I didn't bring it up on the talkpage is because there are too many POV warriors there who will definately not agree.I'm sure you understand.

I'm going now,but I'd appriciate it if the template is left there until some changes are made to reach a more neutral revert can be made.Thanks.--Nadirali نادرالی


 * '' I can see that you do not like the contents of the page, but unless you make an explanation of which parts you don't agree with, and either make a statement of intent by changing the article or proposing a change on the talk page, then people will generally remove it, as there is no revert on the main page nor, a proposal to revert/change on the talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

where do you get the wikibuttons from?
One question: where do you get the wikibuttons from?Sven the llama 07:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, by applying at WP:RFA. The guide is at WP:GRFA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Impolitic edit summaries
You are right on all of that; I was not thinking of non-native English speakers at all back then. Having worked on a lot of Filipino, German, etc., bios has corrected me of such behavior. If I need to do a grammar and copy edit, it now reads something like "Typo fix; grammar twiddle." I don't expect or intend this to influence your oppose vote in anyway, it's just an FYI that my Sept. 2006 era edit summary style is a thing of the past. I'm taking oppose votes as constructive criticism, regardless of the RfA outcome, and genuinely appreciate the feedback. PS: I don't seem to have had anything to do with the Isabella V debate at all. Maybe I did somewhere, but the links you put in never mention me, and the article/debate honestly doesn't ring any bells. :-) &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 17:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind! I see that it was in reference to the "bogus" issues that Dakota raised; I'd forgotten that it was the "Isabella V" article at all, since it is long gone. D'oh! &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request on one of your blocks
Please comment on the unblock request at User talk:Pmanderson, on which you were the blocking admin. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Howdy -- I was going through CAT:RFU and found that you'd blocked this user for a 3RR violation on Naming conventions (geographic names). Apparently, he only reverted 3 times, not 4 (a 4th edit reverted something different, apparently not controversial). While 3RR is an electric fence, the user had also started engaging in discussion on the talk page, so I don't see an in-spirit violation. Mind overturning? Mango juice talk 17:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I waited several hours for your input, but you've been away from the computer: you must work for a living or something. :) In any event, with concurrence from Mangojuice, I've unblocked, with comments urging the user to continue discussion on that talkpage before making any more reverts. If there are any questions or comments please let me know. Newyorkbrad 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, that's fine then. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi "rape allegations"
Howdy Bl,

RubberS here. I noticed you have been fighting vandals/unsourced rape allegations about Mr. Gandhi. I commend your editing efforts elsewhere on WP, however I am opposed to the removal of this "controversial" section for 3 reasons:

1. The story is now larger than allegations of rape. It involves Government of India censorship, Congress Party legal actions, and the general sense anyone who follows Indian life gets that the big guys get away w/ murder (literally). 2. While its true only "blogs" like Indymedia and the clearly biased HinduUnity site jumpstarted allegations of rape charges on the Net, in a place like India it is extremely difficult for the "truth" (whatever it may be) to get out via traditional media, especially for the son of a popular politician. 3. As a potential "future PM" (which I find highly unlikely btw) Mr. Gandhi will have more than his fair share of controversy. You cannot act like a judge on this matter nor should you act to protect his political career. Act as the messenger of truth that you are, that is it.

For the reasons of plausibility I am against removing these allegations. Let the world make their decision by labelling the section disputed/factual accuracy in question (like I did when I wrote that section). Removing it as if it doesn't exist is not in the spirit of WP. Maybe the form it was in was terrible (I admit I'm not an expert by far). It should at least be mentioned somewhere because "it" happened already, to Mr. Gandhi, and its significant.

Would you agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rubber soul (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC).


 * What matters is that you follow the WP:BLP policy. Hindu Unity and blogs do not qualify as WP:RS, so rumours like that, especially defamatory ones, will be removed immediately. I'm sure Gandhi will become controversial in some way, like via his politics, but we would have sources for what his policies, speeches are, but to peddle defamatory rumours is unacceptable. I am not a supporter of the Congress Party. Also see WP:V and WP:OR - Wikipedia is about "verifiability" - even if everybody thinks N Korea has nuclear weapons or that someone has been using bribery, it has to be independently verified, not "personal truth/esperience". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to look more carefully, but I am surprised you guys stick the word "controversial" everywhere. Have you read WP:WEASEL. These words are useless and don't do any good. People will read the facts and work it out. Having said that the state of these Falun Gong articles are a disgrace. I don't know enough about FLG to talk about bias, but the formatting, language, professionalism of the text is absolutely dreadful. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll read it cheers. Yeah I know what you mean, we are working on it. We realise there are many problems, and they run quite deep. It is hard to do things because this kind of activity is constant. Most time is spent arguing about this kind of thing or minor other revert-battles, so genuine improvements to the articles have been put in a secondary place sometimes. Those are just my thoughts. We are coming up with new strategies and things, so the situation should improve. Thanks, and please get back to me about what we can do to prevent further behaviour like Samuel's. One editor has proposed additions to the locked page. I think it is a request to put the blanked stuff back in. I'd be curious about what kind of justification Samuel provides for his editing. --Asdfg12345 15:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Blnguyen, since you have stopped revert wars on FG related pages, I thought I should provide some background info on edit conflicts on these pages. Basically editors on FG pages come from two camps: Falun-Gong-practitioner editors and non-Falun-Gong-practitioner editors.  And their editing style is drastically different.  Practitioner editors are here on a mission to promote their group, non-practitioner editors are here to inform the public about the core teachings and practices of this group.  Practitioner editors have repeatedly removed statements and teachings of their leader as well as reports from major US media such as the Times and Wall Street Journal.  Their blanking of info has always been rejected by editors on the other side.


 * Because Asdfg12345 is complaining about me here I hope you can give me a chance to defend myself. My parents are both long term Falun Gong practitioners and because of that I have an insider’s view of this group which is considered a cult by prominent American cult experts.   I have revealed well concealed core beliefs of this group on Wikipedia and I believe my contributions have helped make these FG pages more educational rather than Falun Gong propaganda. Asdfg12345 is a Falun Gong practitioner and a self-proclaimed edit warrior, the following is his latest declaration: “I will continue to remove all edits which misrepresent Falun Dafa and force a POV on wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 11:59, 5 February 2007” .  There is a whole section on the Falnu Gong talk page regarding his destructive edits.


 * Coming to the issue of a recent revert war on Suppression of Falun Gong page. Asdfg12345 and his fellow practitioner editors started rewriting the whole page at this time 17:04, 3 February 2007.  The following example will give you a sense of the POV they were pushing.  The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident section had this neutral beginning: “From July 22, 1999 to the end of 2002, tens of thousand of Falun Gong practitioners had protested in the center of Beijing--Tiananmen Square. None of these protests was more shocking, revealing, controversial, or tragic than the incident on January 23, 2001.”  It was changed to “The campaign of government suppression of Falun Gong was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001, when persons whom the government claimed were Falun Gong practitioners, among them a 13-year-old girl named Liu Siying, set themselves on fire in Tiananmen Square.”


 * Despite the fact that these self-immolators who were badly burned attested that they were practitioners and third party observers have confirmed their identity, the Falun Gong has denied them practitioner status ever since the incident. In their attempt to push their denial, practitioner editors removed statements like this one: “All but the twelve-year-old girl had protested the ban in Tiananmen Square previously, according to the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy."


 * You are right about the dreadfulness of Falun Gong pages. There have been too many revert wars and people don’t bother to polish these articles.  We have demanded mediation and Armedblowfish is finally agreeing to look into the dispute.  Hopefully he can solve the deadlock.--Samuel Luo 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll have a deeper look soon. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

 * ...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, but I have a question. On your page you state how many pages you have deleted, how do I find that out? ~ Arjun 19:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)