User talk:Fnhddzs

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. You have made a lot of sequential edits to Falun Gong, so I'd like to ask you to please provide an edit summary for your edits to make it easier for the rest of us to keep track of what is going on at such a high traffic article. Here are a few more good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Fire Star 03:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Rory0 96_(block) 18:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Wenyi_Wang.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

wiki is amazing. :)

I am new to wiki.

I appreciate all your inputs! I don't intend to revert others unless they revert mine. I don't even know how to talk with them and submit something like 3RR. And actually I also don't know where is the button for revert :) (I just have my local copy. of course I won't need to do that if everyone is polite). Please kindly tell me what I can do when somebody reverted mine and there were no admin present.

Fortunately, seems wiki is fair. I hope the admin can watch out the true vandalism.

Thanks for help!

Usually people use their discussion page for this, but okay.

I suggest you start with this page. It will give you the basics and there's some useful links at the bottom. Also check out your talk page. Somebody has left you an intro and a bunch of other useful links. CovenantD 03:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearwisdom

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. This is a non-notable website according to WP:WEB. The Alexa rank of 118,407 demonstrates that it is a low-prominence website. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CovenantD 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Tawker 00:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're getting the idea. If you doubt what somebody else has written, make them prove it. Much more harmonious. CovenantD 01:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2 and NPA

Well, Tawkerbot2 is a computer program and not human so I'll try and respond for it. Those do look like personal attacks, the best course of action is to put a npa warning template and if they keep it up report it to WP:AIV - Cheers! -- Tawker 04:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Yueyuen 02:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)== STOP REMOVING SECTIONS FROM FALUN GONG!!!! ==[reply]

Your wholesale removal of sections from the article WITHOUT DISCUSSION is pure vandalism. If you feel they are redundant, bring it up on the talk page FIRST! I am sick of this and will report ANYBODY who continues this childish behaviour. CovenantD 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're not even talking about the massive changes you're making - that's not operating in good faith. CovenantD 22:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please show some respect for other editors by discussing the changes you want to make before making them, thanks --Samuel Luo 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your accusation is funny, I just checked the record, looks like he is refering to Covnetnet's mail to you because my message to you was written after his posting. --Samuel Luo 00:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who s/he is. But this person is suspicious. Why s/he bothers looking at my mailbox for me? Why s/he does not talk to me directly? Fnhddzs 00:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People look at users talk pages all the time. The fact that somebody knows people have a problem with your discussionless edits is pretty thin evidence of sockpuppetry. CovenantD 00:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have checkuser privileges. Wikipedia's privacy policy does not allow the IPs of registered users to be revealed anyhow. See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser for more information. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the message you are referring to is in your talk page, where anyone and everyone can see it. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get someone to checkuser. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ever occurred to you guys that Samuel and I can be friends and whenever he is in a revert war he calls me up for help? I believe a balanced article is better than a Falun Gong propaganda. Your removal and deletion are not acceptable as many have already warned you --Yueyuen 02:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who am I is none of your business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.7.120 (talk • contribs)

Protecting Falun Gong

Mirobrovsky (or however it's spelled) waited for over an hour after I said that I was going to request protection. I'd say that makes his actions justified, if the revert warring alone didn't. CovenantD 02:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the Falun Gong talk page here [1]. It isn't addressed to M specifically, but I very clearly state that I would be seeking protection if it didn't stop. I'm pleased that M was proactive in doing so. CovenantD 03:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miborovsky. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the version you and Dilip created. [2] All subsection summaries in the criticism section were gone, only two short sentences remained. I don't care how you worship Li and the Falun Gong on your website but you are not allowed to wipe out critical info here. Revert wars are not good for anyone but if you and Dilip do not stop messing with the critical content I am afraid there is no end to it. --Samuel Luo 08:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

intro

A revert war benifits no one, I would like to make a deal with you. The NY times figure stays with the word "main" what do you say? --Samuel Luo 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even FalunDafa.org introduces clearwisdom.net as the “main” Falun Gong website. The following statement is from FalunDafa.org:

Clearwisdom.net: The main Falun Dafa web site for practitioners and whoever is interested in Falun Gong issues. It is mainly for telling the truth of Falun Gong, sharing insights and information in Falun Gong and cultivation practice, and disclosing the persecution in China.[3]

I hope this statement settles the issue. --Samuel Luo 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

biography

I'm not trying to hide anything. If you look at my edit summary,[4] you'll see that I said it belongs in History of Falun Gong. If you put it in the right section and/or article it might stay. CovenantD 19:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article talk page. I'm not going to debate this with you on mine. CovenantD 19:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

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.

-- Миборовский 20:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

-- Миборовский 00:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock

Miborovsky, please tell me what is your reason of block as "complaint withdrawn"? You are losing your mind. I strongly protest your abusing your power.

Below is the message I got:

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Fnhddzs". The reason given for Fnhddzs's block is: complaint withdrawn.

Fnhddzs 04:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Luo/Yueyuen, my IP addresses are blocked, what are you talking about? CovenantD made a mistake [5]

He actually meant to revert to mine (hence the edit comment) but got confused.

Thanks to CovenantD!

Samuel Luo/Yueyuen, Stop vandalism!!! Miborovsky, stop being manipulated by Samuel Luo/Yueyuen, recover your rationality!! Fnhddzs 06:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You admit that you have multiple IP address. I was wondering about that. You did violated the 3RR hence deserved to be blocked. --Samuel Luo 06:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also your IP address is not blocked. You have used it to revert the article and left message on Miborovsky's talk page as well as here. Can you tell the truth for just once. Maybe Falun Gong practitioners are not capable. --Samuel Luo 07:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes after the name account is blocked, the IP using the account is blocked (I think you must be clear about that since you were blocked). so I used a public computer IP to do complaint edits. I talked with Miborovsky using that IP. And he threatened to block longer time. then suddenly he said he released the block. Then I thanked him and I said I would cancel my complaints. And then suddenly he said he blocked me due to complaint withdrawn. Ridiculous, isn't it? Then that new IP is blocked, and I found I can still edit my talk pages. Don't use the so called truth to pressure me, you are a big liar. Wiki is not a playground for shameless people like you. Don't bother using Yueyuen. Fnhddzs 07:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC) I said I did not revert it. But you kept reverting mine. You did not respond to my discussion on talk page but respond by keeping reverting. [6][7]Fnhddzs 08:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Again I have seen Miborovsky does not put a protected tag on a protected page. Fnhddzs 08:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said you wanted to file a complaint against me did you not? I unblocked you to let you do that. You then said you no longer wished to. I reinstated your 24 hour block. Then, you continued using anon IP and sockpuppet accounts to edit war. I extended your block. -- Миборовский 23:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a semiprotect and does not affect normal editors. Why put a big ugly sticker on the first line of the article telling everyone how Fnhddzs violated 3RR, used sockpuppets, called me crazy, and all that? -- Миборовский 23:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, maybe I did not understand you or you did not express clearly. Here is what you said: "If you edit the Falun Gong article within 24 hours of my prior block of you it will be blocked again." So you did not say you will do blocking if I don't file a complaint. Regarding the first line, I tried to put a tag of unblock given the instruction I got. That is the effect of that. Now I have tried to revise it a bit and will remove it later. As to your claim of socket, what are you talking about? I wrote you emails about this. You are just confusing. Samuel/Yueyuen used socket for a while and even become established users :D) He reported so called revert first but I did not report his earlier revert. (I posted discussion his reponse was to revert.) That is what happened. I had forseen the semi-protection (yet days before our communication this time but I could not tell this time it is protected or semi-protected), so I had called for friends to join and they came for help. Hehe. It seems it is kind of late but that is what happened. I used IP to write to you and sign my own name. It is very public and I don't hide anything. Since I had to write to you after blocking, there has to be a way. And as CovenantD made a mistake[8], I did not revert anything. Anyway, I did not understand why you block me by "complaint withdrawn" and so I called you "crazy" since I could not think of other reasons than your partialness and polymorphism of thoughts. I thought I had good faith but you did not. That could make you angry. If you still feel irritated, please consider not to take it personally. And neither have I. ok? Cheers, Any suggestions for further edits? I guess please be prepared that I will report to you about other's revert since it seems you are always online watching this article. I would trust you and please advise. I did not know who to report before or who is online. Also I thought minor changes do not count. Have a nice day, Fnhddzs 03:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:2002-8-24-hehua-hk.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2002-8-24-hehua-hk.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vote

You misunderstood what ConventD said. He was referring to the dealine. Read his words again "Of course. That's why I phrased it as a question at the very begining of this subsection. CovenantD." Discussion is meant to gather ideas to improve the article. You really think that one rejection can dismiss all the works that others have contributed in the discussion? The answer is no! just in case you do believe that. --Samuel Luo 05:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was for setting the deadline, read those words again. Why can't you respect the majority's position --Yueyuen 06:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I copied it here. Anyone who is English literate would understand it is a consensus vote. I did not ask the deadline.

[9].

Can I assume this is a consensus vote? Fnhddzs 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. That's why I phrased it as a question at the very begining of this subsection. CovenantD 01:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD also negated the vandalims [10]. Fnhddzs 06:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are sneaky you left out the first half of the conversation. I will get it for you. --Samuel Luo 06:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fnhddzs, the conversation was about the deadline. Please read the subsection title and the conversation. This is what CovenantD said: “That's why I phrased it as a question at the very begining of this subsection.” The question he was referring to is this-- Shall we set another deadline? Is it clear to you now? If not read the whole conversation below again, please. --Samuel Luo 07:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline for 1st paragraph

Shall we set another deadline? Say, 5 p.m. (UTC) on Sunday? I believe that gives us about 72 hours. CovenantD 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's set the deadline at 11pm on Sunday, wikipedia time. We are going to need a little more time on this paragraph especial when a editor has not been able to voice his opinion. --Kent8888 08:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I think Monday is even better. We've gotten sidetracked by Cj and whether Falun Gong and Falun Dafa are the same. CovenantD 14:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Let's set the deadline at 11pm on Monday, wikipedia time. --Kent8888 19:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I assume this is a consensus vote? Fnhddzs 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. That's why I phrased it as a question at the very begining of this subsection. CovenantD 01:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[11]

I have spent lots of time to try to reach a understanding with you, please calmly voice your objection about the new version on the talk page. --Samuel Luo 07:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be honest to yourself and others. Please stop vandalism. Fnhddzs 07:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear now that ConventD was referring to the deadline. You owe me an apology for calling me shameless, a liar, poor English and everything else. --Samuel Luo 17:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you learn that you need to clarify the facts before calling people liars. --Samuel Luo 18:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am reposting the conversation on [12] here perserving the original format

Deadline for 1st paragraph

Shall we set another deadline? Say, 5 p.m. (UTC) on Sunday? I believe that gives us about 72 hours. CovenantD 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's set the deadline at 11pm on Sunday, wikipedia time. We are going to need a little more time on this paragraph especial when a editor has not been able to voice his opinion. --Kent8888 08:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think Monday is even better. We've gotten sidetracked by Cj and whether Falun Gong and Falun Dafa are the same. CovenantD 14:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Let's set the deadline at 11pm on Monday, wikipedia time. --Kent8888 19:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I assume this is a consensus vote? Fnhddzs 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. That's why I phrased it as a question at the very begining of this subsection. CovenantD 01:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fnhddzs 07:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, anyone with English literacy know I was asking about the vote is consensus. I did not ask about deadline. CovenantD also reverted your vandalism [13] Fnhddzs 07:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Hi, the issue you raised at AIV probably is best raised elsewhere (talk page, RfC, etc.). I've removed it from the AIV page. -- Samir धर्म 06:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the wrong forum (AIV is for obvious vandalism), and will be removed by any admin. I'd be happy to handle your request to deal with the situation if you would let me know the specifics -- Samir धर्म 06:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong

What I can offer now is to protect the page from further edits temporarily. I understand that there was a previous consensus time limit, but there is currently a straw poll going on on the intro paragraph in question. I will see what the opinions addressed are, and will unprotect the page in a few days. I note that I have to protect the last version, which is the version containing the contentious edits in the intro.

If you find this to be unsatisfactory, I suggest a WP:RfC on the article in a couple of days time.

Hope this is okay -- Samir धर्म 07:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that if the first consensus opinion was truly consensus, it should be reflected in the straw poll as well -- Samir धर्म 07:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. What I mean is that I think consensus is best achieved by the straw poll in this case (based on precedents on other articles) -- Samir धर्म 07:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on Falun Gong

Hello friend, please excuse my english since its not my native language, but please consider what im about to write, i hope it helps out in the making of the article. im doing it here because i just joined wikipedia and do not know yet how to use its features correctly. I know its a very long post but i hope you can publish it in the discussion page so it can clear somethings up about Falun Gong. I just wanted to suggest a few things, well, when i read the Falun Gong article i felt that if i wasnt a practitioner and came to read this article then i would never consider practicing at all. This means that perhaps this is not a very neutral article but please dont misunderstand me, im very aware of the efforts you are making towards creating a neutral article despite the different points of view. Before i start id like to say i have observed some unproper behaviors coming from a few falun gong practitioners who are editing this article, this is not good at all and its the kind of behavior that gives off the wrong image from what Falun Gong really is. Dont think im talking about you, im not saying any names or pointing at anyone in particular but i think we should focus more on fixing and editing the article than constantly promoting falun gong and talking about how good we are as cultivators, how we clarify the truth to other people and how great falun gong is. Please lets not talk about how other people have personal problems which they include in the making of the article and such kind of things because its disturbing for non practitioners.

First of all, i think that saying "The Falun Gong claims the ban was a result of President of the People's Republic of China Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity" is a very weak argument to face "alleged illegal activities" yes, i know falun gong practitioners at the clearwisdom website might have said it as a personal point of view, but since Jiang Zemin's personal jealousy against the group cant really be officially proven in any way and its a very non substantial argument, it doesnt have enough strength to constitute an argument to justify the supression of falun gong practitioners. It even sounds a bit silly to say we think Jiang Zemin is supressing falun gong because he is jealous of our popularity dont you think?. Please guys dont quote like this because you are using what some people wrote in the middle of a paragraph, and including it in a completely different context without explaining properly or complementing it so it sounds as if Falun Gong's argument is baseless and senseless. If you ask me id say something like: "Falun Gong claims the ban was a result of President of the People's Repulic of China Jiang Zemin's fear of the group's popularity since their philosophy differs from the Comunist Idelogy" Modify it or complement it if youd like but i think its ok not to change any terms since its what Falun Gong claims so its ok not to be neutral when dealing with this sentence.

The "Origins" section should be merged with the "History and Timeline" and i strongly suggest to omit the following paragraph reffering to Li:

At age of eight, he acquired supernatural powers. He could levitate off the ground and become invisible simply by thinking "Nobody can see me.” Two other supernatural powers were his ability to control people’s movements by thoughts and to move himself anywhere he wanted by thought alone. The biography also claimed Li has discovered the truth of the universe…the origin of humankind and foresaw the development and future of the humankind.

Its very clear this paragraph was written to mislead the reader, you are talking about the origins of Falun Gong, not about how he could levitate by thinking "No one can see me". I say again that the way it is stated inside the article makes the reader think strongly against Falun Gong, this happens because you quote from what other people write and place it in a different context with the intention to reinforce your criticism towards Falun Gong, this is not a neutral commentary. And it gets even worse when you add this:

In Li Hongzhi’s Canadian lectures held on May 23, 1999 in Toronto, a question was asked to Mr. Li: "I want to recommend to a newspaper that they publish the Master’s biography. Is this appropriate?" and he answered:

"No. I don’t want to speak about my own situation. Nobody should. Because everybody wanted to find out about me there was a very, very simple biography in Zhuan falun. Now I had asked them to take it out. What I tell you about is the Law (Dharma), everyone should study this Law. Have no interest in my circumstances! Just study the Law and that will lead you to consummation."

Just read it alltogether and see what this subsection is really trying to tell you. Besides, this is a message he is directing to his practitioners, not for other people to read just like that, it gives the wrong impression because non-practitioners have not had any experiences in the practice of falun gong that would lead them to not misunderstand what he states above. I would suggest the following:

Falun Gong was introduced to the public by Li Hongzhi on May 13, 1992, in Changchun, China. Invited by Qigong organizations from each area, Mr. Li traveled to almost all major Chinese cities from 1992 to 1994 to teach the practice. From 1995 to 1999, Mr. Li Hongzhi introduced the practice to other countries. Since then, Falun Gong has been voluntarily promoted by practitioners themselves. At the beginning, Li introduced himself to the public as a Qigong master. In “A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi” which appeared as an appendix in the Chinese version of his book, Zhuan Falun, before 1996, it is claimed that Li was guided by more than 20 masters of both the Buddhist and Taoist cultivation ways since the age of four. Li’s first teacher introduced him to the cultivation of truth, compassion and forbearance (zhen, shan, ren).

Of course it does need a little bit of work to finish it up but i think this merged argument is ok. If youd like to add some againstFalunGong coments on the origins part then id say you could write about how the critics believe its not a legitimate Buddhist practice or something related to the origins of Falun Gong itself.

Also i think the In Favor and Against comments are really separated, if you notice, the "Falun Gong Teachings" subsection is very short and just provides a link to some other page. While the criticism and controversy subsection is, of course, longer and directly exposes all the critics made to falun gong. So if i were the reader, i would first finish this article before clicking into the "Falun Gong Teachings" page, and after reading the critics and seeing no point of views from the people in favor of falung gong expressed on the same page, i wouldnt really feel like going into the "Falun Gong Teaching" section. Besides, the "Falun Gong Teachings" section is just a bunch of the masters quotes, its okay to quote him but i dont think its the proper way to create an article about falun gong!. Falun Gong practitioners, please do not be afraid to structure an article by yourselves about what falun gong is, dont look outside! you must look inside yourselves and find what you believe you must say about it. You of all should know this is also a part of your inner cultivation as falun gong students so im confident we can all make a good job on this one, according to what Li says, fear is an attatchment right? so dont let that hold you back.

I propose that the InFavor and Against comments on falun gong be included on the same page and at the same context so that the reader can be bombarded with opinions from both sides, just like it was made at the beggining of the article, something like "The critics say......but falun gong claims......" "Falun Gong says.......but the critics state......". If you are going to make a subsection which title is "Critics and Controversy" you are supossed to write about why on earth it is controversial, and according to wikipedia, controversy means: "...An opinion or opinions over which parties are actively arguing. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements." notice it says both parties actively argue about it but i only see the critics actively arguing about it, where is the falun gongs argument in this section? it doesnt seam like a neutral subsection to me.

On the "Research into health benefits" well......i believe its very vague and again it puts up a link to another page speaking about some scientific research, excuse me but i think we can do a better job on this one. Just say some general things about how Falun Gong practitioners believe practice is good for mental and phisical health, post some testimonies and experiences from actual practitioners and how Falun Gong changed their lives, and then you can say you made an experiment and say something like "For more info click on this link" see what i mean? i can propose some ideas for this subsection but i dont wanna make such a long post, any of you can contact me and we can discuss about it. The idea is to have a completely neutral article and then you can include links to other pages that can talk uniquely against or in favor of Falun Gong.

I will suggest Falun Gong's arguments that could be included in the critics and controversy section. I will be typing main ideas that can be restructured or complemented later on so that they can be added to the article, we dont want such a long article but the arguments the critics have posted need to be answered in detail. So, here it is:

Differences between Falun Gong and other beliefs.

"Whether Falun Gong cultivation practice derives legitimacy from the ancient teachings of Buddhism is a matter of some controversy. Supporters say that traditional Chinese teachings called the Fa (Dharma) or “Dharma and principles” form the foundation for their Falun Dafa. In Zhuan Falun, Li states “the Falun Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha’s School, which has never been made public during the historical period of this human civilization.” However, as reported by Benjamin Penny (2005), Falun Gong’s earliest critics stated that by dramatically changing the meanings of traditional Buddhist terms, Li misrepresents the basic tenets of Buddhism and should not claim to be part of that tradition."

What we can say is something like: Li states that Falun Gong is a cultivation practice that belongs to the Buddha School and not the religion of Buddhism which is itself included in the Buddha school, certainly Falun Dafa does not derive from the religion of Buddhism and its concepts and traditional meanings differ from that of the religion of Buddhism. This does not mean Falun Dafa does not belong to the Buddha school since the religion of buddhism does not constitute the entirety of this school but is instead a part of it just as many other cultivation systems that also belong to the Buddha School.

Li as a savior or supernatural entity

"Although Li has never directly said he is God, critics point out that he assumes the role of a divinity by virtue of his claimed supernatural powers. (Chang, 2004) In addition to being the exclusive savior of mankind during this "Dharma ending period," Li promises his disciples that they themselves will become gods some day. He has numerous fashen (law bodies) which also exercise "great supernatural power," cure illnesses and know what the practitioners are thinking at all times."

Perhaps we could say something like this: Falun Gong practitioners do not consider master Li in any way to be an object of worship, since worshiping is considered as an attatchment and it is against the philosophy of the group. But they do consider Li to be a higher being who has brought his teachings to the public to help and aid the morality of mankind. Li has not promised to the practitioners in any way that they will also become gods some day, he merely states that through inner cultivation one can reach enlighthenment and become a higher being, this can only be done through your own effort and Falun Gong is not the only way to attain this goal, there are many other cultivation systems that can lead you through it. The concept of God, Fo, Tao, The Fashen, Super Natural powers and such are some of the beliefs of Falun Dafa practitioners and they are entitled to believe in them, and the understanding of all of this concepts is a gradual process which is mainly aided by the experiences gathered through the process of cultivation, so when exposed to non-practitioners, it is hard for them to understand if they dont practice or if they read the books without a righteous intention or without the desire to cultivate.

Fa-Rectification, Li's version of the Apocalypse?

"Whether Li’s teaching that his Dafa (great law) is judging all sentient beings amounts to an apocalyptic prediction is a matter of some debate. Practitioners strongly reject the apocalyptic label, while commentators generally come to an opposite conclusion. Maria Chang (2004) writes: "Just as human civilizations had been destroyed in the past because of immorality.l.. Li is convinced that the moral decadence of our times is leading to another apocalypse. His writings and speeches are replete with references to the 'Dharma-ending period' of 'the apocalypse,' the 'Great Havoc,' and the 'end times' (mojie). With the end days approaching, Li has set about disseminating Falun Dafa so as 'to provide salvation to mankind….in this final period of the Last Havoc.'" "

Perhaps we could answer something like: Falun Gong believes there is a Fa, a law based on the core principles of Zhen Shan Ren or Truthfullness, Benevolence, Forbearance to which all the beings in the world should abide by, the closer you are to these principles basically determines how good you are as a person. The Dharma Ending period or the Last Havoc reffers to the moment when people's morality is decayed and they cannot use it to tell whats good and wrong. Master Li states as an example that somebody can be doing something wrong and you can tell them it is wrong indeed, but nowadays it has gotten to the point where this person doesnt think that what he\she is doing might be an unproper and hurtful action, when in fact it is. The salvation of mankind through the practice of cultivation systems like Falun Gong means one can have an opportunity to elevate his moral principles and try to be a better person everyday, thus following a righteous, kind and tolerant way of life. There is no apocalypse or "end of days", the Fa-Rectification is a process by which it is said everything is being reformed and readapted to be able to assimilate to the principles of Zhen Shan Ren, this is happening due to the Dharma Ending Period.

Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions

There is some controversy about how meaningful Falun Gong’s many municipal awards and recognitions are and how they are used to promote the Falun Gong. Falun Gong expert Patsy Rahn (2000), states they “are documents routinely obtained by groups from public officials in the US for public relations purposes” and may be used to mislead people in China into believing “that the American government supports Master Li and his Falun Gong practitioners.”[8] Noah Porter (2003) argues that these awards are not always easy to get, citing one example from Tampa, Florida.

I propose we answer something like this: Even though some people believe the awards and recognitions recieved by falun gong may be a routine process, it is doubtful that all these are handed down as merely a routine process, among these awards we can find the 2 nominations for Li to the nobel peace price, the proclamation of falun dafa day, falun dafa week and falun dafa month in many states and areas around the world, the letters of appreciation and the speeches of the State Representatives of different Countries expressing the great impact it has had on society and how it has benefited its people. See http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/special_column/recognition.html for more information on the awards and recognitions. It cannot be clearly said if the government does support master Li and his falun gong practitioners since there have not been any highly significant actual political figures (like the president for example)to speak for the country and show if they agree or not with Falun Gong, so these documents and awards do not have any effect at all in misleading people in China into thinking the USA government supports us.

Falun Gong and Sexual Orientation

Li has made statements condemning homosexuality, suggesting a homosexual has a "dark heart, turning demonic."[10] However, homosexuals can practice Falun Gong if they "correct this bad behavior".[11] The teachings of Falun Gong are seen as homophobic by critics, while defenders of the Falun Gong dispute whether statements made by Falun Gong's founder are fairly interpreted.

Ok, this is a very delicate topic and it really worries me that there are some people who may think Falun Gong practitioners are homophobic, so i hope i can make it clear that we are not homophobic, in fact, it is horrifying to be labeled like this. So excuse me for writing so much in here.

I believe we should respond this way:

Falun Gong practitioners are not at all homophobic and Li has not condemned homosexuality in anyway, the quote "dark heart, turning demonic" was extracted from one of Li's poems in which he uses this adjectives to reffer to the "licentious desires", licentious means a sexually unrestrained behavior which involves issues of lust, promiscuity and such and it does not reffer directly or mainly in any way to homosexuality. According to Falun Gong, homosexuality is a "deviated behavior", this means it is not a rightful behavior and it is not proper according to the order of nature. If we take homosexuality to a macroscale, for example, if every single person in the world was homosexual then what would happen to mankind? what about reproduction and survival of the species? this is why it is not considered a rightful behavior. In Falun Gong it is believed that man and women were created in order to be together for each other. According to Wikipedia, The word homophobia means fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. As you can see, being a homophobic person is completely against the principles of Truthfulness, Benevolence, Forbearance. Also, fear or discrimination is an attatchment and Falun Gong stresses that during the cultivation process one must also leave all attatchments. Even though we do not agree with such kind of behaviour, it doesnt mean we will treat homosexuals differently. The practice of cultivation requires leaving all attatchments and if you are determined to practice then you must understand that in order to succeed you must leave them all, if you do not wish to do so then you are still attatched to these things, these things may also include a behavior, like homosexuality for example. But through the process of cultivation anything can be achieved and we only look at your heart and nothing else, so if you really want to cultivate and cant get rid of these things in the meantime, then we believe that the process of leaving these attatchments will happen naturally. There is no need to worry, homosexuals can practice Falun Gong if they want but they must have the heart and the desire to cultivate just like anyone else should, if anyone does, then the rest just comes naturally.

I really want it to be clear that the fact that we do not believe homosexuality to be a correct behavior doesnt mean we are going to treat them differently in anyway, people are different and we as Falun Gong practitioners respect everyone in this world. Homosexuals have had so many problems with society in the past that perhaps hearing something like this might make them think we are homophobic, but we are not.

On the Ethics section i think it is unnecessary to post the following:

"In a speech in Los Angeles (2006), Li Hongzhi spoke for the first time about what he sees as a big problem—cultivators not accepting criticism well. He also suggested that practitioners may be too focused on making judgments about others:

"As cultivators, think about it--I've talked about this in Zhuan Falun and in my earlier teachings on Fa--I have said, "Don't hit back when hit, don't talk back when insulted." When others mistreat you, you should respond with just a smile and let that be the end of it. And when others are embroiled in conflict and you are just an onlooker, you should think about it, "How can I do better? If I were in that position, would I be able to control my xinxing and face the criticism and disapproval like a cultivator?" Cultivation is about looking inside yourself. Whether you are right or wrong, you should examine yourself. Cultivation is about getting rid of human attachments. If you always reject reproaches and criticism, always point your fingers at others, and always refute others' disapproval and criticism, is that cultivating? How is that cultivating? You have grown used to focusing on other people's shortcomings, and never take examining your own self seriously. When others' cultivation one day meets with success, what about you? Isn't Master hoping that you are cultivating well? Why won't you accept criticism, and why do you keep focusing on other people? Why not cultivate inward and examine your own self? Why do you get agitated when you are criticized? How many of you seated here can keep at ease when someone points at you out of the blue and berates you? How many of you can stay unruffled and search for the reason on your part when faced with others' criticism and chiding?"[13]"

Falun Gong also believes in the act of retribution, and all good and evil deeds will be paid in return in the due time. Because of this, they see the Chinese government crackdown as an act of "evil", and some pro-Falun Gong groups have reported claims of a number of people dying or suffering spontaneously after their alleged involvement in the crackdown of Falun Gong.

I dont understand the last paragraph and besides, i think we can structure all of this in a much better way. It sounds a little vague to quote something Li said once in one conference some months ago, if we are going to talk about the ethics then i recommend speaking more globally and less specifically, remember that is something he said at that moment to the people in that lecture which are different from the thousands of people that might browse this webpage someday, and if you are going to use a quote, try not to make it too long as it is very impersonal and sounds as if Falun Gong practitioners had nothing to say about these topics so they had to go around looking for masters quotes to post. Also, if you want to use a quote id suggest you take one from Zhuan Falun. By the way, shouldnt the "Ethics" section be merged with the falun gong teachings and beliefs section? whats the objective of this subsection? if its purpose it is to neutrally speak about Falun Gong's ethic then i think this should be included in the "Critics and Controversy" subsection then.

The Supression of Falun Gong subsection is okay, i think the main page about it has a few things that can be restructured like the introduction and so on but generally i think its a good work, it just needs some fixing to do. I agree that the theoretical and epistemological studies of falun gong section be merged with the falun gong teachings main page, i havent read it completely so far though but i think we could modify a few things if we are going to merge it with the falun gong teachings main page. I Also have some ideas we can add to the "Falun Gong Outside of China" subsection but we must all be clear this section has to be equally neutral of course!.

Well, this is all i will write for now, im willing to help as much as possible or in anyway as possible so please tell me what should i do in order to join and participate and contribute on the development of the article! I will write my email address in case anyone wants to contact me regarding falun Gong or the article itself and to dialogue about what things we can add or modify on it.

Xenogears14@hotmail.com

Im most willingly available to discuss any of these topics, it is clear we all want to make this a better article and i will completely respect anyone's opinions and i will expose my reasons and my opinion in the most respectful and nice way to you all. If you read all of this post then i thank you for doing so and remember you can write to me if you have any questions regarding falun gong.

Andres

Research into health benefits

Let me know if you need some assistance with the references. I know from personal experience that getting them right can be difficult in some cases. CovenantD 14:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-1-28-painting-fzn small.jpg

Please provide evidence that Image:2006-1-28-painting-fzn small.jpg is public domain, as you say. The source you provide doesn't seem to say so anywhere, but I can't read Chinese so I can't be sure. Please note that the absence of a copyright notice does not mean the image isn't copyrighted! Everything must be assumed to be copyrighted unless there is very good reason to believe it isn't (e.g. published before 1923, author dead more than 70 years, work of the U.S. Federal Government, or an explicit statement from the author releasing all rights irrevocably). User:Angr 07:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you make a fair use claim, you can't use it on your user page. And anyway, if you don't know who the author is, you can't make a fair use claim anyway, because part of claiming fair use is identifying the original source (the author). User:Angr 14:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (and counterintuitively), Wikipedia can't use images by permission. This is a free content encyclopedia, which means all content (including images) must be free for anyone to reuse for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Permission to use the image on Wikipedia doesn't extend to other people reusing Wikipedia content, so Wikipedia policy is not to use such content. The only exception is fair use content, where if the fair-use provisions are adhered to correctly, we don't need permission. But fair use images can only be used in articles, and where a good fair use rationale can be made for them. User:Angr 15:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression of Falun Gong

Would you mind working on the lead section of this article? Basically a new lead section needs to be written that conforms with Wikipedia guidelines. This article hasn't gotten a lot of copyedit attention and you seem to be a good party to attempt it, willing to listen to creative input from both sides. It's also not under discussion or protected right now so that should allow you a freer hand, at least until you post your first major changes. ;-) CovenantD 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to read this article about the lead section. It should answer most questions you have. Let us know if you have any others. CovenantD 20:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress to date? It's been almost two weeks... CovenantD 14:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Master06 big.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Master06 big.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Informal mediator Wiki eZach| talk is preparing to move the Falun Gong mediation case to the Wikipedia:Arbcom. I have been asked to alert concerned (to the best of my knowledge) editors about this matter. Thank you. --Fire Star 火星 22:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

This edit is rather puzzling as it points to a statement by a Chinese NGO which takes the government line, not to a statement by a human rights group. The statement was made to a UN human rights group, but is only an expression of opinion. Fred Bauder 13:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Falun Gong mediation

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

AfD nomination of CIPFG

An article that you have been involved in editing, CIPFG, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIPFG. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Academic views on Falun Gong

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kilgour-Matas report for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Kilgour-Matas report, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilgour-Matas report until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SilkTork *^YES! 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sound of Hope for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sound of Hope 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sound of Hope (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. PrePublic (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]