User talk:Asdfg12345: Difference between revisions

Archive: start-May 2008

Userboxes

Xe This user wears ignoble gases, with consensus. ' This user flies on doorknobs, mostly! AYBABTU This user supports the independence of all your base! This user swears by Canada, and blames himself. R00T This user is made of admins, and blames herself? tru This user shaves truthiness. This user barely tolerates sutures, for the most part. This user is afraid of keyholes? This user deletes tentacles. This user fidgets with probing. 0mni This user fidgets with omnipotence! This user emphatically supports potatoes! This user slaps clusters of Mongolians. This user caters for clowns? This user nibbles on potatoes! This user likes peaches, sometimes? This user enjoys consuming articles, as long as other people agree.

I had to tweak your LOL comment in the CtItPoFG AfD since I added something to my comment above yours. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you get some free time, please have a look here, I would appreciate your comments on the CIPFG and Epoch Times, as they relay to the FG series of articles as a whole. MrPrada (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were automated it could be considered a violation of wp:bots. I just type really really fast. --AdultSwim (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asdfg12345, although I will agree with you that sourcing the Chinese government about Falun Gong itself is inappropriate, there is NOONE better to say what the government thinks about something, than the government itself. The statement doesn't claim that Falun Gong is a terrorist organization, only that the Chinese Government claims so, and it does claim (the right or wrong of that claim is totally irrelevant at this point). So the source is fine, and should stay. Samuel Sol (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Asdfg12345, the point, if the problem is to put the statement on the lead, would be just to move it down further on the text. But the info should be there. As I said on AN/I, for us here, Falun Gong IS best know for this controversy. So it should be part of the article. And about your rhetoric about the CCP article, yes, there must be something on the criticism of it by third parties on the article, but you need to keep in might the weight of each groups on the dispute. The Government, like it or not, be it democratic or not, is the most important body of each country, and there opinion care relevancy. Not so much can be said about groups criticizing it. For example, a statement on the CCP article saying. Lots of organizations have decried the CCP as a terrorist organization regarding philosophical groups in China., with references to Tibetan, Falun Gong, among others, would be appropriate. Samuel Sol (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to note, about the article about the Controversy; yes the main explanation, what the government says, and a detailed analysis belong to that article, about on Summary Style, it needs to be cited on the main article. Samuel Sol (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this isn't about excluding the CCP's views from the article. But it's about minding WP:UNDUE. The persecution of Falun Gong is the most noteworthy thing about it, I agree. The weight of the different publications also needs to be taken into account. But as I gave in the Holocaust example, that article is not all about Hitler's hate speech and vilification of the jews, is it? This example is very comparable. It does not give those views as though they are just regular views being expressed. All these things are within the context of a deliberate hate campaign--this is not what I'm saying, I am basically just synthesising what the majority of reliable sources have said about this. It's actually quite simple. I mean, take a look at the persecution of Falun Gong page, there is a lot of this information to put things in perspective. And actually, there is already a section on that page about the CCP's use of media against Falun Gong; it is quite in-depth, and based on scholarship and high quality journalism, such as from Washington Post and Wall Street Journal; these sources are prized over the CCP's mouthpieces. Another thing, in case you don't know, you also might want to read this article: [1]--Asdfg12345 13:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asdfg12345, thank you for moving around my proposed edit on the FLG page. I apologize for placing the one up front, I wasn't aware of the rule you mentioned, and will be mindful next time. I was told to try to create more internal and external links, and that's really all I was trying to do. Appreciate your work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pthornto (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Asdfg12345. You have new messages at Wookipedian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change sourced stuff just because you think they are wrong [2] :) . See Talk:Falun_Gong#practice.2Fmovement for what I found that the sources were exactly saying. There is a verifiability policy to check the sources for the correction of the information, instead of using our personal opinion. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:FO.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the "Beliefs and teachings" section of Falun gong to a previous version, since, if I read your change correctly, you had just copy/pasted several paragraphs from Teachings_of_Falun_Gong. Unfortunately, this made the section more long than necessary (since there is already a main article on the theme, we don't need to repeat everything on Falun gong), and it was a duplication of content present on other article, instead of a summary of it. If else, the article should be shortened to reduce its size.

I don't oppose improving the section, but try not to create duplications, make a summary instead, and try to keep it as short as posible. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Shuangcheng practice1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the banning of the organisation is important here. It is possible to persecute an organisation without banning it, so the two acts are distinct. I appreciate the desire to simplify the event description but think we can mention the banning as well. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for your comment on my talk page ... yes, the Wikipedia is an interesting muse and the work is not over yet! Nice not to have another flame from attempting some sense of reason.

A couple of years ago, Robert McHenry, a former editor-in-chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica, defined the Wikipedia as a "game without consequences" ... a "knowledge game", I call it. I deeply disagree that it is without consequences though. I think that there are some terrible, conscienceless and negligent wastes of other people's times going on as well as, in some dark corners of it, a continued corruption of the commonwealth of knowledge that is human experience. A game of unseen consequences perhaps.

It does not pay to be too subtle at times.

Best wishes. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added them. For most people it's confusing if those lists are not organized, and most people can't read fast, so they need the titles to skim down the list. It also helps to have visual separators so the links won't all mix together. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay no worries.--Asdfg12345 04:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Selfimmowflag.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was introducing a table outlining the teachings .. just half way through th edit..'ll look into your concerns too :) Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay. just try to avoid the verbosity. It's like a creeper-vine that you have to keep cutting back. If you don't do that people will feel like they're doing someone a favour by reading through poorly constructed sentences and wasted words. This is my opinion on many of the changes in prose. I harbour other concerns.--Asdfg12345 14:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on the article talk page but reverted it because I thought it would not be constructive

Although it's a way of conciliation, I think you're being to soft on User:Dilip rajeev. Some while back, he suggested changes to the article, and been warned to slow down. Once the storm had died down, he continued to make radical changes despite opposition from at least one other editor. Now that the cats were away, he's been making his promised wholesale rewrite of the article disregarding the views expressed before . Since the article has not "progressed" in his eyes, he just went ahead in the sincere belief that he was making a better article. Is what I said a contradiction? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, basically you're right. And "Déjà vu" is an accurate summary. I should have just objected to the use of a broad brush to refer to editors' proclivities and sometimes nuanced points of view on this topic. The last thing we want is to understand ourselves as either "pro Falun Gong", "anti Falun Gong", or "pro CCP" editors.--Asdfg12345 03:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The adversarial system may be good for courts, but polarising the debate creates antagonism. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that's it!--Asdfg12345 04:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing — that made my day. If you're not having fun editing Wikipedia, you're doing it wrong. :) —Roman à clef (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong is already mentioned, and the passage is imho undue weight to a fringe opinion. --Soman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Communist Party of China. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tiptoety ^talk 16:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You have removed my article (remove. please discuss such changes, at the very least. it's been talked about much, wikipedia is edited on consensus) I've said in the discussion tab : "Not a word about his claims on levitation and David Copperfield and the little green men ? This article is POV. I'll add something, feel free to modify it but don't remove it."
I agree that my spelling grammar is far from correct, that's why I'd be glad to see you or anybody else modify my addition. But it seems to me that it shouldn't be removed, because it gives a different view of this guy, don't you think ? There's a full article on the Falun Gong persecutions, it would be honest to put this controversial claims as well. Tkak 21:49 16 august 2008 (UTC) (81.250.143.47 (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, thanks for following up and being friendly etc.. I admit that I find Li's comments interesting, though not just on this subject. I think there are a large number of subjects he's discussed that would be even more interesting. But I don't know how we are supposed to decide which gets placement in the article, and choosing one which we think is particularly scintillating doesn't seem professional. We can continue the discussion on the talk.--Asdfg12345 00:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your comment over on USER:Colonel Warden's talk page. Overall, I think it's the right attitude to take. And I believe that Warden's participation on wikipedia suggests that he or she does act rationally on wikipedia, his or her continued participation, which is civil and friendly, shows this. But some admins appear to have recently abused their power, even covering up (using admin tools to remove it) a comment by User:ScienceApologist. The comment now appears to exist only as a quote User:Colonel Warden/wounds, but I read the original comment before the admin tool abuse. If my perception is correct here, then there is definitely a cancer in wikipedia processes. Warden's comment would be justified if their really was an admin-level cover-up aiding ScienceApologist (getting him or her out of trouble by removing the comment and some of the history of his or her actions). --Firefly322 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered what aspect of Bach you were interested in. Yesterday, I came across this fascinating moving visual representation of a movement from one of his trio sonatas for organ, which might just as well have been written for an ensemble of instruments. And the lecture entitled "Bach manuscripts" here is good, as though the recounting of a detective story. Tony (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's both think about it. It would be better to source it to both sides. For example, this source [3] says

In some areas of paranormal investigation, such as extrasensory perception (ESP), the research is already often better done than much orthodox scientific research, with controls and double-checks most scientists would regard as overkill. Skeptics mostly still feel that the intrinsic implausibility is so great that nothing short of airtight and well-repeated research would be sufficient to support ESP. Little or none of the existing research rises to that level, so we remain skeptical. (Some recent work has been of high quality, see Ray Hyman's article, "The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality", in the March/April 1996 Skeptical Inquirer, pp 24-26.) Had skeptics said some 40 years ago that all we wanted was reasonable quality replicated research, we might now be having to eat our words.

And that's from Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking (PhACT).

If we had enought sources that it seemed a notable opinion of both parapsychologists and skeptics, it could be placed in the Parapsychology today section perhaps, and then put in the lead. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the skeptics need to agree to something for it to go in the article. There's a reason there are skeptics and parapsychologists--because they hold different views, right? I think the key thing is that the people doing the research are saying that the only reason the other guys aren't believing this is based on their 'true belief' in scientism and rejection of the evidence presented before them. I've seen this point made in the writings of several parapsychologists. If main people doing this research have that to say about the relationship of their work to the mainstream, shouldn't that go in the article. Know what I mean? So we have the mainstream view of its relation to parapsychology, then how parapsychology understands itself with relation to the mainstream. Have I expressed my thoughts well?--Asdfg12345 01:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, I agree. However, all I'm saying is that it would be better to source it as an agreement from both sides. Then we'll have less trouble putting it in. Look at the history of that article, why don't you. However, what you say here is more about the debate. By consensus previously, we avoided debate. That is because the debate is endless, and too complex for the reader to understand. I had a whole article on it once. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the wikiproject China page I made a request for some comments on the Chinese gymnist controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Comments_to_Age_Controversy_of_Chinese_Gymnists . We are stuck in a gridlock and I'd like some neutral opinions, if you have an interest. Thanks.LedRush (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input at Talk:He Kexin. It's been hard to get anyone to comment on that issue, which the one user won't let drop. I was thinking about reverting the edit again on my own and asking him one last time not to edit it without discussing at the talk page, but I have done that before and to no avail; that user refuses to listen to the comments of multiple users at Talk and has continually been edit warring. Anyway, I'm not going to touch that sentence about He's parents because I have already removed it three or four times and the original user has reverted me every time; I assume there are plenty of other people out there who agree that shouldn't be included, so I'll just let other editors do it. Anyway, thanks for coming in and offering another opinion. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 13:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted, but this is the kind of thing that makes one mutter-under-one's-breath at wikipedia. I'm not going to undo again if he fights about it.--Asdfg12345 13:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. He has been blocked once at 3RR and has gotten multiple warnings about edit warring, so if he does start a fight then it probably won't take much to get him blocked again or banned. As far as I can see, most of the Talk page consists of him arguing with just about every other editor who comes along. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 13:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also, regarding the lead-in...I also thought about adding mention of the fact that some people believe the issue has not or cannot be resolved, but instead I opted for adding "formally" in "an investigation has formally cleared her of wrongdoing," hoping that that wording will imply the controversial nature of the decision and maybe be a good compromise to ward off some disagreement over what to include in the lead-in. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 13:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment at Talk:He Kexin

I think a curious feature of wikipedia is revealed in these exchanges. Only if you really cared about the article or the subject would you bother to go the distance in arguing about it. --Asdfg12345 18:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Wait. There could be other motivations, but definitely, I would say that they would have to be even more unfathomable.--Asdfg12345 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article, yeah; not necessarily the subject. I don't know about others, but I have gotten embroiled in disputes before over subjects about which I don't care one way or the other, and merely want the article to be better. I try to avoid getting in fights when the subject is something I feel strongly about, since I figure that will keep me from being able to be objective about the article. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 18:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It is good to hear other people's perspectives on this matter. Thinking from myself, if Mr. Fletcher come back with another wheelbarrow full of bogus arguments, reinserted the parents' indignation, etc., on this article I honestly think I just wouldn't bother with it. I'd just feel like this guy is responsible for doing something wrong, and it just doesn't make my time shortlist. Depends though, I think if it was egregious, my good conscience couldn't leave it. But there are sooo many articles which have problems because of this issue. It would be a full time job for 1000 Trojans to fix them all!--Asdfg12345 08:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in cleaning up the lead to that article! I came across it a few days ago and it was a big pile of POV tripe (in fact, my buddy Bobby fletcher shows up several times in the history), and I've been trying to get it to as neutral language as possible while still prominently saying that most investigations have found no evidence of the particular claims of live organ harvesting, etc.

If you have time, another article that could benefit from your help is Re-education through labor, if you have a moment to glance over it. I sort of adopted that article a week or so ago (like the Sujiatun article, it was pretty unbalanced and poorly written) and am trying to nurse it back to health. I'm trying to nudge it towards being good enough for GAN, but as of now there's a shortage of information about the status of re-education through labor since a big law went through in early 2007--most of the information in the article is from before that happened, so it needs to be updated (i just can't find much recent information on it). And, of course, there are no pictures. Anyway, if you get a chance to take a look at it sometime in the next couple weeks, I would be very grateful. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, agree. I know there is some good information on labor camps in China. Let me set aside a couple of hours over the next couple of weeks, I know where (some of) the information can be found, so it's just a matter of summarising, referencing, and that kind of stuff. The actual work isn't all that time-consuming.--Asdfg12345 01:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added a lot of older stuff and information on a bunch of groups' general feelings on the issue, and specifically comments about March 2007 when the government said they were going to eliminate the whole re-education through labor system, and the various groups that doubted that, but I haven't been able to find much information since then to evaluate what the lasting effects of the policy change have been. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Re-education through labor just made DYK! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only editor getting this message, but as of right now you are in violation of 3RR on the Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China‎ article. Further reverts to this article within the next 24 hours will most-likely result in a block. Rather than reverting any more, please DISCUSS the changes you wish to make on the article's talk page, and wait until consensus is achieved before making any large-scale or controversial changes. Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 13:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point. I'm fairly-new to this admin thing; let me go seek a bit of experienced counsel and get back to you. I certainly don't want to accuse people of things they haven't done! Gladys J Cortez 20:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the discussion over at WP:AN seems to have borne out, you were NOT in violation of 3RR on the Falun Gong article. As I said, I'm new to this admin thing, and I'm certainly not out to besmirch the name of any perfectly good contributor due to my misunderstanding, miscounting, or mis-whatevering. I apologize for the confusion and will strikethrough the incorrect bits up above just to provide closure. Thanks for being so reasonable during the process of figuring it all out!! We could use more people like you around here.Gladys J Cortez 21:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)I changed the wording in the article to hopefully come to a compromise on the "persecuted"/"banned" issue; my comments are here. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend: Thank you for your note. Certainly I would be more than happy to look at the papers you have and give my thoughts on them. However, I should mention that I am not the most qualified person to do this. First of all, I am not Australian Aboriginal (although I have spent almost half my life living in or close to Aboriginal communities in urban, rural and remote settings and have been very privileged to have been taught a few things and shared many priceless and often life-changing experiences with Aboriginal friends and mentors). Additionally, I am not an academic and have never made a serious academic study of Aboriginal cultures. What I do know and can share is limited - and not only from lack of knowledge - but from the lack of permission to discuss many matters publicly - and subjects such as "totemism" should really be explained by properly initiated or trained people who have the authority to speak (subjects such as these are often very sensitive and sacred or secret and subject to strict Aboriginal Law which I will, and must, respect). However, don't be discouraged - please do send the material and I will think about it and discuss it with others who will know better than I what can or should be said about it in the Wikipedia. Then I will get back to you. Cheers and all best wishes, John Hill (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC) PS Perhaps you should also contact 'Bruceanthro' [4] who is an anthropologist actively working on Aboriginal issues. .................................[reply]

Hi again! Sorry I have taken so long to reply. Thanks for all the lovely scans. I have read this book before, but many years ago and it was a real pleasure rereading the beautiful stories and seeing the lovely illustrations again.

I do have a couple of concerns, though, about how this might be adapted for use in the Wikipedia. First of all - I have no idea how accurate the stories are - or even whether the author had permission to use them. Secondly, the stories come from a very wide variety of Aboriginal groups with different traditions and I can't see how one could condense such stories to produce an accurate and readable account of "Aboriginal totemism" (I really don't like the term "totemism" although I have nothing better to offer. It sounds like Anthropological shorthand and, if used in the Wikipedia, I believe it should be very carefully and concisely defined in terms of the specific matters being dealt with in the article). How to turn this all into a good Wikipedia article is beyond me.

My own knowledge of such subjects and stories is really very limited - and just amounts to a few stories and ceremonies I was privileged to be taught by a few qualified people in only a couple of tribal groups. Not only that, but much of the little that I was taught was imparted to me on strict terms of secrecy and I will not breach that trust no matter what. I have no right to speak on their behalf - particularly in a public forum. Finally, a few stories from a couple of tribes are not enough to draw conclusions about "Aboriginal" cultures in general.

I would suggest corresponding with User:Bruceanthro and, maybe an expert such as the well-known Aboriginal anthropologist, Professor Marcia Langton, and canvass their views on how to best handle such a complex and sensitive subject and how to make it meaningful and accessible for a general article (maybe a separate one) in the Wikipedia.

Sorry I have not been able to be of more help. I wish you all the best in your endeavours to make this fascinating subject come alive and be available to the Wikipedians. Cheers and all best wishes, John Hill (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your note, what you say is fascinating. Perhaps Bruce is onto something with the disclaimer that his contributions on this topic are essentially illegitimate, from a certain perspective. (At least this is my interpretation of the meaning of his statement.) I'm busy at the moment, and this is the first contact I have had with this subject, so I really know nothing about it. I so enjoy the book though, and this is certainly a topic I will maintain a long interest in. Any retransmission of these things already alters them, in my understanding. I see the purpose of summarising the content of books such as this, and adding it to the encyclopedia, as a way of giving greater exposure to the topic and allowing more people to understand it. A guiding principle needs to be 'do no harm', though. It may be a good idea to point out, before the part which introduces the content of this book, what you say above: that the references to actual tribal groups are vague, and whatever other deficiencies. For me, I felt that I wanted to check with people who know more than me whether there would be any problem putting some of this content onto wikipedia. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the topic! I'll let you know if I come across anything else interesting and relevant.--Asdfg12345 14:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I know it is often really frustrating for people doing research on Australian Aboriginal issues, as so much was and is traditionally sacred/secret and only revealed to properly initiated and trusted people of the right sex. These laws were (and still are, in many parts of Australia), rigorously enforced - and sometimes outsiders really can do a lot of harm without meaning to. I once asked an Aboriginal "medicine man" in Central Australia why these laws were still kept so strictly in this modern age - especially now that in many places no one is receiving the proper initiations and training to be fully taught and the traditions and stories are dying out - and he reply that Aboriginal religion would not have survived even this long if these Laws were not properly observed - they would have already disappeared under the tidal wave of conquest and foreign ideas and religions.

I certainly don't want to discourage your interest in these fascinating cultures but hope this helps you understand why I keep harping on the need for full and proper authority and guidance before they are discussed in the Wikipedia. All my very best wishes, John Hill (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there... I have just reported that "guy" for vandalism, I have seen that u did the same some time ago... Maybe we can both get that "guy" kicked out... cya!! Gumuhua (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style states "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name."--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 00:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have possibly the most bizarre userboxes I've seen to date on this site. I like it. ←Spidern→ 16:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asdfg. I'm not a frequent reader of Epoch Times and I don't keep a list of stories that strike me as unbiased in it. But whenever I see an English language copy of it lying around in a food court or wherever, it is almost invariably lead by piss and vinegar stories against the PRC, usually over perceived injustices towards Falun Gong or Tibet. Further, perhaps I'm just overly skeptical, but a lot of their claims such as "Falun Gong are having their organs harvested by the Chinese government" strike me as far fetched, and certainly wouldn't be published by any serious news organisation without rock solid evidence, which they don't seem to have. In short they seem, to me, to be a club of Falun Gong members and others with an axe to grind with the Chinese government. As the professor from Duke says on the Epoch Times article, "the paper does not adhere to basic journalistic standards of professionalism and objectivity, and is "not viewed as an independent objective news media" by mainland Chinese". While I don't think the existence of Epoch Times is a bad thing (I only wish there were more groups putting a spotlight on the PRC's shoddy human rights records), I think that it is best viewed as an activist mouthpiece, not a respectable news source, and consequently I don't think it can be viewed as an unbiased, or even reliable, source by Wikipedia standards. TastyCakes (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I agree, with non-China related stories they seem no different from any other newspaper. The problem is for those stories there are usually many other sources to choose from. It would be strange, for example, to cite them in a story about UK unemployment when you could cite a business newspaper or a well known trusted source like The Times or better yet the government release of the actual data. TastyCakes (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, I provided few more comments on the surrounding issues regrading surrounding problems. I hope you watchlisted that page. M.K. (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, bad news: Right now it looks like it might be deleted next week. Other users argue that the article does not fulfill WP:NPOV that it is too long, does not need an extra article and so on. You know the discussion. The only problem is, that nobody seems to support the article. Greetings --Gilbert04 (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, six minutes after an administrator deleted another article he deleted this article as well calling it an "essay not funded on independent sources". I guess I should better not comment that decision... --Gilbert04 (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello. would you mind commenting again in the form of a vote? i believe that your position was clear, but now there is a vote, and i don't believe your comment counts unless you enter a vote. Talk:Firearm Theserialcomma (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to look over the article. Unfortunately, right now I am in the middle of my school's final exams, but I will be done with everything by next Thursday (the 23rd), so I'll review it then, if that's all right. A reminder probably wouldn't hurt either. :) Thanks so much for all you do for Wikipedia! That article was really interesting! Intothewoods29 (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Talk:Shen Yun Performing Arts Cantabo07 (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to a recent complaint I received regarding your editing at the Falun Gong subject area, I am issuing you with a final warning against improper conduct when editing those articles. Whilst editing articles on this topic, please bear in mind Wikipedia's prohibition on using the revert function to remove changes to the encyclopedia that you do not agree with. This applies even where the changes appear to be undoing information that is reliably sourced; in such a case, you should contact an administrator and ask for assistance in having that editor dealt with, rather than blankly revert. I'd also remind you that Wikipedia's purpose is to present verifiable articles in a neutral point of view; deliberately introducing a non-neutral viewpoint into an article is quite contrary to what the project stands for, and will not be looked on kindly. If any section of this warning is breached, or your actions on a Falun Gong article gives reason for concern, then you may be, (a) blocked from editing; and/or, (b) reported to the Arbitration Committee, per the arrangements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation, with a request to have you banned from the subject area. It's disappointing that I'm having to issue blocks to experienced editors in this case, but there truly is a lack of professionalism and camaraderie in the working relationships between a number of editors working on this article. Regretfully, AGK 10:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a response on your talk page asking for clarification of any wrongdoing on my part, also with a bunch of diffs of mass blankings and my reversions of them. That's all the dispute has been so far, in my experience. I pretty much need to know how I've done anything wrong, because I've always done my best to be active in discussion, and the reverts were a last resort when discussion broke down and thousands of words of well-sourced content were repeatedly deleted. --Asdfg12345 14:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this article should be nominated for deletion?[5]--PCPP (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wjd3photos.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asdfg. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your opinion at Talk:The Epoch Times#Wenyi Wang. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Asdgf12345. Your name has been mentioned in a comment I left on another admin's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_2 Irbisgreif (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be involved in an editwar at Falun Gong please cease reverting the same edits and instead going to discuss how to best improve the article with other editors. Please observe wikipedias policies WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR Failure to do so may get you blocked.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a repository of potentially useful links for use in the Falun Gong articles. Please feel free to paste links there with a description of what they refer to, for easy relocation. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested in knowing that both straw man arguments and continued comments on other editors, rather than the material they discuss, are in fact both reasonably considered disruptive editing as per [[WP:DE}} and related pages and the existing arbitration sanctions regarding Falun Gong related material. I sincerely hope I see no reason to refer to such matters again. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Falun Gong/Objectionable edits, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Falun Gong/Objectionable edits and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Falun Gong/Objectionable edits during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your presence is urgently requested at the talk page on this subject[6]. / PerEdman 09:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong workgroup progress cookie! Enjoy! (Merger of Eutelsat-NTDTV censorship controversy‎ into New Tang Dynasty TV‎)

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

You and I have always enjoyed cordial yet frank relations in the past, which I hope will not change. The exchanges at Organ harvesting are getting nastier than I would like. I can completely understand how you may be feeling beleaguered there, having apparently been left on your own to fight the FG corner against 'assorted anti-FGers', but if you were referring to me, I feel that your accusation of "mudslinging" and "accusations of bad faith" etc a bit over the top, because I don't really see how; none was intended. I was merely asking you to consider the stance you adopted on the issue, to ensure that you are at least being intellectually consistent, so quite how that was a bad faith accusation is beyond my comprehension. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your latest edit[7] I see that you have still not taken the discussion to Talk despite the BRD process. Please do so now, editor Simonm223 has made his opening post already. Do not further edit the topic, even in small steps, until you have discussed the matter with the editor with whom you have an edit conflict. / PerEdman 10:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asdfg. I appreciate your latest response[8] it shows good faith. But please try to understand the opposing side here - we are a large number of editors agreeing that the arguments for merging are convincing, nonetheless you and HappyinGeneral simply disregard those argument exactly like you are accusing us of doing. It is frustrating for other editors to see that they are vastly in the majority but that their opinions are being stalled by editors merely contradicting what they say. I suggest that a good way to find a way out of this that doesn't invlve asking arbitrators to enforce the clear consensus to merge would be for you to suggest a compromise that might convince some or all of the editors in favour of merge that there is a better way to handle the problem than merging. Such a compromise does not involve backpedalling and beginning to reinsert material removed by other editors who deemed it irellevant - it would likely involve trying to salvage the article by recognizing that large amounts of material are beside the topic and that the article could be much more coherent and succint in a much shortened form. Simply beginning to unilaterally reinsert material the removal of which you disagree with as you did is not colaboration and it is not good behaviour on an article on probation. I ask you to please reconsider your rigid stance and try to be more forthcoming to those who have another opinion than yours. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]