User talk:Fire Star/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Restoring userpage history

Thank you, i appreciate it :)--Striver 12:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wu Ying-hua and Ma Yueh-liang

It seems we've started working cross purposes on the Ma Yueh-liang and Wu Ying-hua pages. At the very least, I'll stop working on them while you're editing. Jabberw0cky 14:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Good picture of Wu Ying Hua and Ma Yueh Liang! I like the changes. Jabberw0cky 06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

If you google "David Race Bannon", you can see that he was recently arrested, partly based on evidence by Samuel Browning of Bullshido.net

There is a new David "Race" Bannon article that is not showing up in Wikipedia searches. Also, searching for "Race Bannon" turns up Johnny Quest. Can you set up a disambig page for "Race Bannon" searches, and see if you can make sure the article can be searchable?

Thanks!

--Scb steve 03:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I managed to figure it out. Disambig pages on the Johnny Quest page, and other pages are set up. Try doing a search for Race Bannon or David Bannon.

--Scb steve 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:212.219.63.204

We gave blocks of conflicting time to this college school IP. I gave 3 hours, you gave 1 week. I beleive that the shorter block will automatically take effect. Mostly letting you know so that, if you wish to restore your longer block, you can do so. Do keep in mind that long blocks on this IP have been removed in the past because of collateral damage to good users. - TexasAndroid 15:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Dear Firestar, sorry I can't figure out how to create a new topic here, so I edited this one by adding my query. I've got a couple of questions I hope you can help with. One is, when I did a "world tai chi & qigong day" search on wikipedia the World Tai Chi & Qigong Day article did not appear. How can I get it searchable on wiki? Second. I've uploaded a jpg to World Tai Chi & Qigong Day's url, but can't for the life of me, understand how that gets into the article. When I click on the add image, it has no offering of a way to actually get the jpg I uploaded into the editing text. (?) Thanks for any tips you can give. World Tai Chi & Qigong Day 17:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi, sorry for all that stuff. I was frustrated with PFHLai as he came off as condesending when he was questioning me about using the attribution tag. I was confused on how to tag this photo as a copyrighted image and didnt know about the image policies until later. My regards. Sai Tién! S0berage 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mulitple biographic entries

Hi Does Wikipedia have an actual policy regrading multiple biographic entries? If you have a chance please take a look here. More curious than a deep need to become involved but I could not find anything in the help section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steven_Seagal#Takeshigemichi and Chungdrag Dorje Peter Rehse 01:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Lets see how the responses go. I've quoted what you wrote (as anonymous administrator).Peter Rehse 02:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word "salnder" in the wikipedi article

I used the word slander becaue that is the word used in the lectures... it is NOT SAID ANYWHERE THAT "CRITICIZING" The Dharma would bring a lot of karma on the inividual.... the word used in the lectures is "SLANDER"... i think "slander" and "criticism" are different.... Btw, how do you send a message to another user? -Dilip Rajeev

[edit] Please Help Us Clean WP from Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath and His Crony

Hamsacharya Dan is back with his usual vandalism. Adityanath, the sysop on watch, is going on a holiday. Please see my Talk Page, Mahavatar Babaji Talk Page, and Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath Talk page to understand the situation that led me to you. We need your help and other sysops whom you might know.

Thank you so much.

No To Frauds 23:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constant flaming

Hi Firestar,

There is yet another personal attack on my talk page, by the same person. Would like it removed if possible. I'm just wondering if this individual has ever written an constructive edit...article or talk page...

Also, please see latest discussion in Mahavatar Babaji talk page. I think we can agree to the main 2 sentences, and leave out the quotes. I haven't put my consent to that on the talk page, because I think that the flaming individual will just try to strike out even that. I have not found it possible to deal with that person rationally. So the format would be Sentence 1. Sentence 2. Sentence introducing quote. Quote. Will look for your comments on that discussion page. Thanks. Hamsacharya dan 21:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yogiraj Gurunath

Thank you very much for mediating the Babaji discussion. I would like to turn our attention to the Kriya Yoga page, Nath page, and Yogiraj Gurunath page as well, as we had originally discussed. Some evidence that Gurunath is a Nath HERE. Also, if you do a google search for "Nath sampradaya", his page is #1. FireStar - I came across this page just now, and thought I should bring it to your attention, since those other editors were calling it into question. Most of them have never even heard of the Naths and yet they decided to chime in. Yogiraj Gurunath is clearly a Nath - and just because a few people on here haven't heard of him, doesn't mean his contributions are not significant. Anyway, I leave it up to you to mediate these changes, because any additions I make seem to attract attention from a couple of these individuals who damage my edits beyond repair. I'm not going to get involved in any more edit warring - don't have time for that.

Anyway, what I would like, if possible, since this clearly worked in the Babaji page, is for us to start a similar discussion in each of these sections in order that we can come to another concensus as far as additions. For example do you recall the issue about adding quotes in the babaji page?: the same quotes that we decided to leave off the Babaji page and put on the Yogiraj Gurunath page, were removed from the Gurunath page! I want to keep in line with Wikipedia guidelines, but I also don't want to be bullied on here. I would really appreciate your help. Hamsacharya dan 07:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi FireStar...I just wanted to let you know that I've contacted a few sysops who dealt with the individual before and had blocked him, since he again is making things difficult within our mediation discussion. They may be contacting you for further information. Thanks. Hamsacharya dan 05:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adityanath

As I have read on, on the weblink i sent you, I have noticed that this person Adityanath has been pushing his POV on other websites as well. Now it makes sense why he is guarding the Nath page. I'm really disturbed by the implications this has on wikipedia. When I tried making additions to the nath page, they were promptly deleted. All the more reason that your moderating would be greatly appreciated!! Sorry, I'm really not trying to put down others, but how are people supposed to add information to wikipedia if these articles are perpetually guarded by fanatical editors? Hamsacharya dan 07:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

Thanks for letting me know about the move. ---Baba Louis 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, what you said in my Talk Page is not true. I have been participating with the discussions every single day without fail, and I never saw any general consensus approving your version. Actually, there is a voting going on and some people don't even want Mr. Shitole's name there. It is you who sin't participating with the voting. I have reverted your reversion on the grounds that no general consensus has been formed approving your version. Shitole's words weren't there before and the article was already fine. Nobody complained about it. It is you who should make a convincing case why Shitole's words should be there in the first place. So what if he claims to have met Babaji? What does the mention of Shitole's name and book actually add to the article? Actually, it only turns the article into an advertisement for Shitole. No To Frauds 17:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This article has now been nominated for AfD. Thought you might want to make a comment. MLA 11:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Mahavatar Babaji

I don't have as much time to edit at the moment as I used to. Can you point out the attacks. I had a quick read and all I saw was the one from 11th MArch "..Dan went around crying like a child who lost her mother ..." are there others. Ah, I see that both him and Dan had attacks removed. I will try and go through the rest of it and answer later. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cambridge - I did make a couple personal attacks against NoToFrauds early on on the Yogiraj Gurunath talk page. However, on the Mahavatar Babaji page, the "personal attack" that was removed was a reference to this individual being asked to stop vandalizing web pages. I'm not sure it was really a personal attack, because I included a verifiable reference to the claim. However, I'm not saying my behavior on here had been completely commendable - as I do admit to having made a couple other personal attacks on the aforementioned page. I have since changed my attitude and have been going through the proper channels to resolve disputes. Please see my contributions for verification of this. Thanks. Hamsacharya dan 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullshido.net article

Someone slapped a BS template up for speedy deletion. I didn't want to mess with it because I thought it best an admin handle it. Can you please take a look?

Thanks!

--Scb steve 17:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank ya for the assist. If you get a chance, can you help mediate the disagreement that FWBO seems to have against the McDojo and Bullshido articles? --Scb steve 18:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Help mediate the McDojo and Bullshido article controversy! --Scb steve 21:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Someone deleted the Bullshido.net article without warning, and there has been a discussion initiated on the Deletion Review page to allow for Bullshido to be a distinct article. Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Bullshido

Can you please check to see why the Bullshido.net article was deleted, and can you speak up on the WP:DRV page?

Thanks! --Scb steve 17:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So how long or how many votes does it take for a page that was speedily deleted to get restored? --Scb steve 16:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't look like anyone will undelete the .net article. Can you undelete it and let a formal debate go on it if it should remain or not? Thanks! --Scb steve 13:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other kriya related pages

Hi FireStar - I just wanted to find out if you'd like to participate it mediating other kriya related pages. I've taken some action to get NoToFrauds investigated by other sysops that are not involved in conflict resolution. See my talk page for details user talk:hamsacharya dan. I'm hesitating to make further changes to kriya related pages without mediation, in order to avoid future conflict. Please see the last couple edits for [Kriya Yoga] for the latest versions that were agreed upon by all but this individual. Hope to work with you again. Hamsacharya dan 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1908/1912 Swords

Thanks for your edits. Talk:1908 and 1912 Pattern British Army Cavalry Swords for my replies. Epeeist smudge 15:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamsacharya dan & No To Frauds

I've got both of them on my talk page now complaining about the other. The whole argument is beyond me as to who is right and who is wrong. I see you have been involved and that it's probably better for you to decide rather than try to get involved. If though you need any assistance please let me know.

Thanks. I saw that Hamsacharya dan had been blocked and that No To Frauds has removed several warnings from his page. I had given No To Frauds a couple of warnings and so was a little surprised that he would ask me to help. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, I've been watching you do battle with User:NoToFrauds. He is one, um, I guess persistent dude can't be construed as a personal attack... —Adityanath 22:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, HD is now starting to pull an NTF and undoing personal attack elisions diff. —Adityanath 03:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Not true - I noticed that these comments were not personal attacks in the first place. I have been reviewing NoToFraud's diffs and found that he himself recoded them as personal attacks in order to disguise the information. Whether it's a personal attack, I feel should be deemed by a sysop in this case. These were quite old comments, but I had felt that something was amiss for a long time, but couldn't put my finger on it until now. Fire Star: Revert them if you feel obliged - it's certainly a gray area. Hamsacharya dan 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Got nothing better to do than look at old diffs? I'm sure you come off looking much better now :-) —Adityanath 05:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion over Email

Friend, I would like discuss something with you over e-mail. If you are un-willing to post your email id on the page... could you please respond to my email id - dilip_rajeev@msn.com ..thank you... Dilip rajeev 15:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, I would also like to discuss something with you via email. I have email enabled on my talk page, but don't want to post it here. Any suggestions? Priyanath 05:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppeting

Looks like I'm not crazy after all. CheckUser Sysop Jayjg (talk · contribs) confirmed that Adityanath/Chai Walla/Baba Louis are the same, and NoToFrauds/87.whatever/TroyVaughn are the same:

17:40, 19 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser (→NoToFrauds (talk · contribs) and his (possibly) many alter-egos & Chai Walla (talk · contribs) and Adityanath (talk · contribs) and his/their respective possible alter-egos)

Unfortunately, Jayjg (talk · contribs) is wrong. BL, CW & I were travelling together and accessing the Internet from the same hotels and cybercafes. We are now in seperate locations and this can be easily verified. However, Jayjg has decline to examine this. —Adityanath 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
One of the things we look for in sockpuppets is also differences or similarities in editing style. I am satisfied that there are enough differences between the various accounts to say there isn't any puppeting going on, IMO. --Fire Star 22:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your vote of confidence. I put a request on WP:RFCU to get a second opinion, but I expect it will take awhile. I assume the conclusion would be double-checked before any administrative action would be taken against my friends BL and CW simply for being more or less (but not completely) in agreement with me. —Adityanath 22:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
We'll see. It's only takes a bit of cleverness to diversify one's own writing styles. Some people are just bright, in spite of themselves. It doesn't hurt to be a trained "linguist and semantician", does it Adityanath? Hamsacharya dan 23:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've perma blocked Frauds as he was using 201.252.215.190 to evade the block. I will do a checkuser request and confirm it but looking at the contribution patterns adn timing, I am pretty sure it was him. I will also block the IP for a long time as well. Just letting you know.Gator (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please have a look

I have taken abit of a stand here, based on my understanding of citation/OR policy. Please have a look and weigh in if you like, even if it is to contridict me. Its a rather tricky matter, and I'd like a second opinion. I'm pretty sure I'm right, but I don't want to appear to be taking sides... Cheers, Sam Spade 12:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Image:1000000eme.jpg
Yet another sysop rolls off the conveyor belt, thanks you for your help, and excuses himself for a few days while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- Hoary 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ awards this Barnstar to Fire Star for tireless anti-vandalism work, making Wikipedia better for everyone.
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ awards this Barnstar to Fire Star for tireless anti-vandalism work, making Wikipedia better for everyone.

Thanks for clearing the clueless vandalism on my user page! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you delete Anton Gorodetsky?

Anton Gorodetsky is a charecter in the film "Night Watch". Why did you delete my article?Abc85 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kusma's RfA

Hello, Fire Star! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would you still like to get rid of Sollog article?

You wrote a long time ago: "Due to the distinct lack of meaningful support for Ennis or his idiosyncratic temple, and being increasingly persuaded that he harasses just to garner more deathporn hits, if the Sollog article were to go back on VfD at this point I'd vote to delete it." Fire Star 05:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)"

I was wondering if you might still be interested in seeing the Sollog article deleted, or perhaps moved (with talk pages) to BJAODN? A number of editors have now suggested that this article does not deserve to be on Wikipedia because Sollog is a non-entity whose only claim to fame is that he annoying trolled on Usenet and Wikipedia in order to gain attention and draw links to his deathporn sites. A couple of people now have agreed that moving it to BJAODN might be a good idea. If you are still interested in the Sollog article at all, even if your opinion has changed, I would appreciate your comments at Talk:Sollog under the section "An idea for Vivaldi: move this entire thing to BJAODN". Thanks for your time and consideration. Vivaldi 00:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A KISS Rfa Thanks

Thank you, I've been promoted. pschemp | talk 01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Lee

I seriously hope that there's more than you and me that watch Bruce Lee article and react to nonsense added. Cheers to you :) --RockyMM 22:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] STOP!

STOP DELETING MY STUFF! THANKYOU!

[edit] Tag can go?

I don't see major controversies being discussed on Qigong. Maybe the {controversial} tag can be removed? --JohJak2 08:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Splitting the Falun Gong article

Firestar, as you can see practitioners over night deleted and rewrote many sections on the Falun Gong article and there is now a revert war going on. I believe the best/only way to solve the problem is to create two separate articles, one for practitioners and their supporters and one for critics of Falun Gong. Both articles can link to the main Falun Gong page where brief summaries for the two articles and links provided. I believe countless reverts can be avoided by splitting he article this way, what do you think? If you agree can you propose the idea and create the pages? --Samuel Luo 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etaonsh

While I applaud your efforts to tone down some of his statements on Talk:Fulan Gong, if you look at his edit history you'll see that he has a long run of Personal Attacks and lack of remorse for them. In my opinion, he's not likely to stop. As an admin, could you bring his recent behaviour to the attention of another admin? I'm too close to it myself, and I suspect that you are too, but I really think it should be reviewed. CovenantD 17:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dilip Says

Fire Star, You mentioned the topic of Small and Great Heavenly circuits. I know that in most Qi Gong systems it is considered the highest level of practice. In Falun Gong within a few weeks of practice, most practitioners can objectively feel the rotations of the Great heavenly circuit and Maoyou heavenly circuit. I myself can. And remember that there is no mind-activity or imagination whatsoever in Falun Gong practice. It is not wise to reject something just because it is not in-line with out notions. It is un-necessary to accept or reject something when we understand it. Truth has nothing to do with we start believing or stop believing.

Opening of the heavenly circuits are just the first step in Falun Gong practice.If you can try the exercises, cultivate your mind-nature - you can verify that for yourself.. There is absolutely no need to believe or dis-believe what I say.

Remember that Master Da Liu, the master who introduced Tai Chi to North America said at the age of 95 that he asks ALL his students to learn Falun Gong.. Dilip rajeev 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have you ever tried FLG?

Coincidentally, I was just in the process of writing this when Dilip made his edition above. But it seems he didn't provide a subtitle, so I labeled his text myself.

I agree that Li has made bold statements about the superiority of his practice. However, instead of straightforwardly dismissing them, I chose to try the exercises, and that's how I eventually became a practitioner. Honestly, Falun Gong is really effective, even if I don't know what makes it work so well. I understand that many people would dispute Li's Fa itself, but the effective movements are probably the principal reason why people get interested in Falun Gong in the first place, particularly here in the West. I'm just wondering whether you've ever tried the exercises yourself. As a qualified neigong teacher you could probably make some interesting observations. Regards, ---Olaf Stephanos 18:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me out here, I went to an article on Wu Xia, and found a link to a Qinggong stub, but I'd already written an article on said subject, and when i searched for it, I couldn't find it.Dessydes 03:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, never mind, i retyped qing gong, and it came up with the article, which potentially brings up the question: "What do we do with these two articles?" Dessydes 03:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Firestar, since practitioerns have already created their "Falun Gong teaching" page, can you help to create a page for ""Controversial teachings of Falun Gong" now? thanks, --Samuel Luo 04:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations for the asserted superiority of FLG over other styles of qigong

Oh yeah, when the time is right. It's a bit premature yet. However you might be interested in doing a summary of the Controversial teachings section and get that ball rolling. CovenantD 19:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:70.33.75.9 blocked

Well he was warned numerous times. I forsee that the day after tomorrow he'd be back with a vengeance. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. I think the situation would have been resolved a month from now on, so 1 month's ban is not too short. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falun Gong teachings mostly are for audiences on-site and have contexts

Hi, FireStar. I agree that some teachings are difficult to believe for a while. Most Falun Gong teachings are transcribed from lectures with specific audiences (could include old or new practitioners or non-practitioners). Then the teachings may have specific contexts. But all the teachings are made public later. For example, in the Explaining the Fa for Falun Dafa Assistants in Changchun "No more question slips are left. My answers today mainly targeted the issues that our assistants and mainstay practitioners raised. Of course, some of our students who haven’t even attended a seminar or who’ve only attended the seminars once, people who shouldn’t have come, are here. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t listen to this Fa, or that you aren’t able to cultivate. What I’m saying is that you aren’t able to accept these things yet, which involve major issues. If we didn’t let you in you also might not have understood it, since your xinxing isn’t high yet, and you might have said some irresponsible things. But then if we do let you come, we’re afraid that you might not be able to accept it and doubts will arise, which could ruin your prospects. Anyway, after you hear these things, if you don’t believe them, just take them to be stories. Make sure you don’t develop resistance."

The "seminar" in the above paragraph means the lectures covering the content in Zhuan Falun. I suggest we could be open minded when we have doubts. I think having doubts is a good thing, at least it means we are paying attention to it. Just as good students tend to ask questions, while students not attentive often have no questions. But I suggest we could delay making conclusions just based on questions/doubts. Maybe "just take them to be stories" is an idea. When we write critics we may also keep this in mind. Also considering the contexts, digging one or two phrases could lead partial conclusions too. Just some thoughts to share with you. I did not mean you had my concerns I mentioned since I did not see your edits much (I am new). Thanks! Fnhddzs 16:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on User:Hamsacharya dan

Fire Star, I know you were involved in attempting to mediate the dispute with Hamsacharya dan where he kept removing material he called "original research" even after the section had been approved in mediation, Perhaps you could add your comments to this RfC? Thanks. —Hanuman Das 13:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religions once classed as cults

Would you consider changing your vote to keep the information if it were merged with List of groups referred to as cultsexpanded into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Some users on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religions once classed as cults page have changed their votes to merge the article with the List of groups referred to as cults. This may address your concern that the word cult has achieved a perjorative sense. It could make that list much more interesting, even more NPOV. Would you consider that as being worthwhile? cairoi 03:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of sub-stubs

Hi,

I've seen your message to User:Edebundity and was wondering if you can help... This user created over 100 articles that contain no information at all; all of them are in Category:Towns of Bács-Kiskun. Even the category name is incorrect. These are Hungarian villages, and I would de-stub them if there were only 5, 10 or 20 of them, but writing 100 articles would be a bit too much for me right now, and now I don't know whether they should be put up for speedy deletion or AfD one by one, or what should be done about them... Can you check them please? Thanks. – Alensha 寫 词 12:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after Edebundy :) Please delete that category too, it was renamed to the more correct name Category:Cities, towns and villages in Bács-Kiskun county (a subcat of Category:Cities, towns and villages in Hungary. Thanks! – Alensha 寫 词 15:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) – Alensha 寫 词 18:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting or Not-Deleting?

[edit] Speedy deletions

The majority of your recent contributions have been deleted under CSD A1: "Very short articles providing little or no context". I would suggest that you write the article first, then submit it to Wikipedia, rather than submit an empty article. --Fire Star 13:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Response

Well I was going to add more info to my articles later on, but since you deleted them, there won't be any articles to expand. If other users in Wikipedia don't value my work, then why should I contribute to it? If you delete what you don't like, I might as well go on and delete your articles. And that would not lead anywhere. So either you stop deleting my articles, or I will take it on yours. User:Edebundity

Perhaps I can explain. Creating an empty article and then working on it days later isn't the way things are done here. I am a Wikipedia administrator and I have the ability to remove articles that meet our criteria for deletion. I deleted a series of empty articles that met "CSD A1" which means articles with no content other than a title. Other articles you started, that at least had an explanatory sentence and a population figure, were left alone. If you want an article to survive, then you'll need to have at least some content for it first. We don't know that you or anyone will expand things later, so we have to deal with what we see, I'm afraid. You can build articles at the sandbox and then move them to the main space once they have some info attached. What I don't recommend is your removing content from Wikipedia simply for what you consider to be revenge. You don't have the ability to delete articles here, and if you remove content, it will be reverted by our RC patrol. Such removal is considered vandalism and will eventually get you blocked from editing if persisted in. Regards, --Fire Star 火星 20:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. I see what you mean now. There is no guarantee that anyone will ever expand the articles that I started so you have to delete them. From now on I will try to start an article an finish it before I start another one. Thanks Fire Star. User:Edebundity
No problem. I should mention that when you get the info you need, the deleted articles can be easily re-created as well, the deletions aren't permanent. --Fire Star 火星 20:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edebundity"


[edit] We Need a New Mediator on Falun Gong Page

Fire Star: Uncle Ed has recently taken to massive editing of material in the Controversy and critism page without any attempt at mediation. One of our most neutral editors, Covenant, has quit because of it. In doint research, I found that Uncle Ed is a member of the Unifaction Church and has written extremely critical commentary against cult experts on his own page. Clearly he is not the right mediator for this job because he lacks neutrality. Please check out the most recent discussion, and the post I just did requesting a new mediator. I hope you will suppport us in this endeavor. --Tomananda 05:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Firestar, I was editing my own posting.[1] I forgot to sign in after restarting my computer. :)--Samuel Luo 23:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on the Bullshido-related Pages

FS: Can you keep an eye out for a new wave of vandalism on the Bullshido articles? Apparently there is a movement coming from the supporting member forums on Martial Arts Planet to deface the articles with no regards to keeping things NPOV or discussing them on the talk page. I reverted a few edits to blatant vandalism myself, but would like you to be aware of what's going on in case things escalate. Thanks. --Phrost 17:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that add. For the record, I "coined" the term back in the early 90's after watching the horrible movie "Bushido Blade" which was also the name of a video game around the time. It wasn't coined for the Bullshido site. That whole section could probably be removed as it's not really relevant to the article as to who coined the term either way and derails that paragraph a bit. But I'm not going to edit it out since I'm involved in the issue. --Phrost 19:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Dilip:

Friend, Falun Dafa is not some made-up Qi Gong system as you think. It is a cultivation way, and a Dafa of the Buddha School. I am never asking you to believe what I say.. just try the exercises for yourself and you will understand. Think about it, if Falun Dafa is truly a Dafa of the Buddha School, how precious is the oppurtunity to cultivate the Great Law? Buddhism holds that one comes across such an opportunity only because of one's mighty virtue which has been accumulated through countless lifetimes. Isnt it worth putting in a few hours to find out? Would it be wise to let such a precious oppurtunity slip by?

Let me just point out that there is no direct relationship between our own post-nataly formed notions and reality. The path of wisdom doesn't constitute in belief or doubt and neither has it got anything to do with skepticism. The path of wisdom constitutes in inquiry, analysis, experimentation and meditation. It is un-necessary to believe or doubt, to accept or reject when you understand.

On reading your user page I sincerely wanted to ask you to try out the exercises. I request you to go through these nine video lectures at the same time as you learn the exercises, please do so with an open mind and you will understand for yourself. The MP3s of the lectures are available here.

Just wanted to remind you that some of the most renowned masters in the Qi Gong community including Da Liu considers Falun Dafa to be an extremely high-level cultivation way.. and has said that he now asks ALL his students to learn Falun Dafa.. The Dalai Lama himself says Falun Dafa is very good... I am not asking you to believe anything but only to whole-heartedly try out the system, and understand for yourself. Dilip rajeev 05:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How could someone offer "proof" for a cultivation system? It is upto you to try out and find. How could someone offer "proof" for tai-chi? The small and great heavenly circuits open up right at the onset of Falun Gong practice. You can objective verify that for yourself and almost all practitioners can objectively feel the falun rotate, throughout the day. As I sit here and write this I can.

Please think about it, Master Da Liu was taught in private by several masters in China before he came across Falun Gong. You may find this article written by Youfu Li a martial artist and Tai Chi teacher interesting. http://www.umich.edu/~falun/Experience/li_youfu.html

Dilip rajeev 13:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Friend,

Falun Gong is not a "belief" system. The teachings emphatically say that it is useless to worship someone or hope for things to go well . Only through genuine cultivation of oneself can one improve.The Four Noble Truths or the Four Noble Seals are not a "cure" it is the seal of true Dharma. The four noble truths are present through out the teachings of Falun Dafa. Every single Falun Dafa practitioner experiences "proof" in the physical. There are so many experiences you can read on clearwisdom.net . If you are interested you can go through these set of articles[2].

When I read your reply, I was reminded of an article a fellow practitioner wrote:

""My father started practicing Tao school qigong in 1949. He was known as a famous martial arts master in our area, but he had never boasted about himself. On the contrary, he was always very humble and told people that he was a disgrace to his master. Nevertheless, people from near and far kept on coming to our home and asked to fight my father. Some people had even traveled from a few hundred miles away to fight him. Usually when a man came to challenge my father, my father would be very polite to the man and asked him to come sit in our living room. Then they started chatting. After they finished chatting, the two of them would have known who won the fight. It was not at all like what the Chinese martial art movies have portrayed. After the guest left, my father would never tell anyone who won the "fight." Later my father heard about Falun Gong and got a copy of Zhuan Falun. As soon as he finished reading "Genuinely Guiding People Toward High Levels" in Lecture One of Zhuan Falun, he decided to practice Falun Gong. He told me, Falun Gong is the ultimate Kongfu. If he is not the real thing, no one would dare to write that he is genuinely guiding people toward high levels. Since my father started practicing Falun Gong, he has been very diligent in his cultivation practice. He has never even once given up practicing Falun Gong since Jiang Zemin started to openly persecute Falun Gong on July 20, 1999, not even when the persecution was at its most severe in 2002."

Genuine cultivators aspire to achieve high realms of cultivation practice. They are not at all interested in the superficial, conventional victory that ordinary Kongfu masters aspire to in order to show off.

Those who cultivate the great Martial arts never show off among ordinary people neither would they feel the slightest need to demonstrate "proof" on another person. Tai Chi was a cultivation way, but what has been handed down in society is only the most surface and physical aspects of it.

I dont know why but I sincerely wanted to tell you about Falun Dafa. If you are interested I feel the book Falun Gong[3] and the nine video Lectures[4] are a good place to start.

Dilip rajeev 06:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Jihong

I really urge you to read this article on Hong Jihong, a true Tai Chi master and Assistant Executive Secretary of Yangjia Taichi Association in Taiwan. He is a Falun Dafa practitioner. Please go through the article. http://www.pureinsight.org/pi/index.php?news=3420

Thankyou. Dilip rajeev 06:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned opening the energy channels. You know that usually the opening of the great heavenly circuit takes decades of arduous practice. In Falun Dafa it happens at the onset and continually rotates, even when you are not practicing. I dont intent to compare Falun Dafa with other systems, just sharing my own experience. As I sit here and write this I can feel the Maoyou Heavenly Circuit and the Great Heavenly Circuit rotate.

Truth cannot be understood by the subjective comparisons of the mammal intellect. The dharma is not intellectual knowledge. The intellect is only one of the tiniest and most puny faculties in the levels of the being, one that is grossly dependent on the senses. Neither are the teachings of Buddhism or Daoism intellectual knowledge.. which can be "studied".. it carries meaning at different levels.. only understood by cultivators who have reached that realm through cultivation of Xinxing.. The mundane mind and the intellect are inherently incapable of comprehending the true meaning of the teachings.

You asked me if Falun Dafa practice can block a punch. There are far higher faculties the human can use - not just the puny musculo-skeletal system. The purpose of cultivation practice is not to block punches. The Daoist martial artist was not joking when he said "Falun Dafa is the ultimate Gongfu".

The teachigns of Falun Dafa are not some "religious" belief. The teachings are not seperate from the practice. There are professors in in Harvard, Princeton and Yale who are practitioners.

I hope you have gone thru the links I posted in my previous post. If you were a close friend of mine I would really urge you try Falun Dafa. Anyway, I feel I've said what I wanted to share with you. Thankyou. :) Dilip rajeev 20:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I did. The guy doesn't just do T'ai Chi, he does other kinds of martial arts, too. To me (again, I'm in the business), that doesn't bespeak a very high level of T'ai Chi Ch'uan. Unimpressive. --Fire Star 火星 21:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Lee

Firestar I noticed that the Bruce Lee page has a picture entitled "Avenue of Stars" that seems excessively large and leaves a rather larger white space to the left of the pic. I've resized it and in my browser (Several actually; IE, Firefox, and Netscape) look pretty good. But, there is a user user:RevolverOcelotX who keeps changing it back. I left a note on the edit asking which browser folks are using. Am I the only one who is seeing this? Please check it out. Thanks FrankWilliams 12:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Firestar, I just looked up that user mentioned above and he has a history of screwing up articles. Can we block him from the BL Page???FrankWilliams 12:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tomiki/Shodokan

Hi - I wanted to move the Tomiki Aikido article to its correct name Shodokan Aikido. Unfortunately I can't do that without an administrators help since Shodokan Aikido exists as a redirect page to, you guessed it Tomiki Aikido. Of course the world will not end if it stays as it is but could you help. Cheers. Peter Rehse 08:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate it. Of course I spent the rest of the morning hunting down redirects. Serves me right. Peter Rehse 01:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source Issues with xys.org

Greetings, Firestar. We have discussed a lot on source issues recently ([5][6] etc.). According to our discussion, we cannot accept using the biochemist's personal website as a source to talk about other party. People argue that it is a copy of a conference paper on April, 2000 hosted by American Family Foundation. I have searched the website [7] for the cult study conference hosted by American Family Foundation. However, there is either Deng or Fang in the Author list. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks. Fnhddzs 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Fire Star, Nothing was deleted. Only "xyz.org" material was removed. It was done after so much discussion on talk pages and considering that the sources dont meet wiki standards. Dilip rajeev 17:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suma Ching Hai

Good job on toning down the promotion. I've been reverting the whitewashing for a while but feel a bit reluctant to cut into the article, as with my background, Ching Hai has caused a negative stir, so I was worried I couldn't give her a fair go. Cheers! Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] No To Frauds

Hi FireStar -

I was wondering if you would consider removing No To Frauds comments above about "cleaning up wikipedia from YGS and his crony...etc..." Not that big of a deal, but as you know NoToFrauds was banned from wikipedia, and I'm unhappy about these comments coming up in google searches. Thanks in advance for your consideration of this. Hamsacharya dan 01:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Hamsacharya dan 01:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dilip rajeev just violated the 3RR rule

Dilip rajeev who has been editing on the Falun Gong article just violated the 3RR rule again. His 4th revert is at this time 19:47, 3 June 2006. If you are serious about enforcing the 3RR rule, you need to block him for 24 hours. Dilip has been warned many times and his recent edit was again done without a consensus. --Samuel Luo 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substitution

When you put the Indefblock template here, it wasn't substituted and therefore did not show up. The page is protected, so you'll have to do it. --69.145.123.171 01:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Those things drive me nuts. --69.145.123.171 01:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of TCM questions

Your user page says you contribute to TCM articles, so I assume you'd have answers to my questions. :D

  1. Why are the pericardium and triple burner the only intangible zang-fu in the body? I understand that the spirit and chi etc are also intangible, but then they have their own category. Why are pericardium and triple burner categorised as organs if none of the other organs are intangible?
  2. I'm having some trouble visualising the triple burner. Just what role if any does it have in metabolism? How is it "primarily energetic"? How does it manifest itself in the body?

Thanks. -- Миборовский 03:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So, is it possible to define the triple burner in a short concise sentence? Or would any attempt at explanation be several paragraphs long? -- Миборовский 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW, what do you think we can do about the vandalism on FLG? -- Миборовский 23:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that article helped a lot. Personally, I've lost trust in the ArbCom after the Kelly Martin userbox purge, so I doubt arbitration would do much good. But then, that's just my own opinion. -- Миборовский 01:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] biography

Please do not hide information from the biography. I talked about that in the discussion board. You did not discuss. So please do not delete it without consensus. Thanks. Fnhddzs 19:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violations

Both Samuel and Fnhddzs have now reverted at least 4 times each. I'm requesting that an admin give both of them a short block. CovenantD 20:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reiki

Exactly! It's NOT a soapbox. I am a Quaker, and I'm sure that neither Christian Science nor Quakerism thinks reiki is "occult". Whoever wrote the criticism is writing as if he/she is a spokesman for all Christians everywhere.

I will try to correct again, in as unbiased a way as possible.

Thank you,

Wayne

[edit] Problem with Stephen K. Hayes Article

Hey, Hi! I wanted to call your attention to the fact that there is a problem with the SKH article with user User:Jikaku - again. Jikaku has reverted my changes twice. I have placed an invitation to discuss it with him on both the SKH talk page and his own personal talk page. He has ignored both invitations to discuss and has chosen to simply revert.

I'm asking you to please just keep an eye on his edits on the the SKH article, and at the very least invite him, as I have, to discuss our differences instead of just continuing to revert before he violates the 3RR. Thanks!!! --Corwin8 00:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Jikaku has reverted for the THIRD time, and has thrown me some personal insults to punctuate his point --Corwin8 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1st paragraph, intro, FG page

It is two hours to deadline, please discuss and vote. --Samuel Luo 02:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it may not be a good idea for you to edit the 1st paragraph per my request here, so is there another admin you could recommend that might be able to do so? Or is the best bet to list it at WP:RPP? CovenantD 22:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Didn't realize

Sorry Fire Star, I didn't realize that you were involved with editing Falun Gong. I feel somewhat silly intervening and protecting the page without consulting with you first. -- Samir धर्म 01:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silk Reeling

Hey Fire Star, Added a page on Silk reeling - would be grateful for your once over (as it's my first ever new page - how exciting :-) Also I proposed renaming Dan tian to "Dan tien", as that is the spelling I have always seen... - do you agree? Triponi 22:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving on Talk:T'ai Chi Ch'üan

Hi, I was looking at the talk page at Talk:T'ai Chi Ch'üan and noticed that there were two links to archived pages, both of them red! Finding this exceedingly strange, I dug up the second archival and archived it properly, and noted it was by you. Do you remember what happened? (the archive may be lying around somewhere and I don't know about it, although this seems unlikely). Thanks! — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 22:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings! I'm pretty sure what happened is that some other editors changed the name of the article, possibly twice, without making a redirect from the old name(s). So I think we may have had Talk:T'ai Chi Ch'uan and Talk:Tai Chi Chuan archived, either of which could have become redlinked when the name was recently changed to Talk:T'ai Chi Ch'üan? I was aware that the name had been changed recently, but I wasn't too involved with the change. I didn't remember to subsequently check up on the archives afterwards, my bad... --Fire Star 火星 14:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That's definitely it. Well, not too much harm done, we'd just have multiple copies of the archives floating around. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 15:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New user

Wikifan. Firestar, please do not consider my Billbootharticle nonsense, just because it is gross does not make it so.

[edit] New article Zhaobao Taiji Quan

Hi Fire Star, I have completed a first draft of an article on the Zhaobao style and would appreciate some input if you have any information on the style. I am also not sure how to do the forwarding from the different transliterations of the Chinese for searches. Hope you can help!

Realtaichi 14:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it over to a more common romanisation, and created several redirects based on various spellings. It's a good start. --Fire Star 火星 17:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zhong Gong and Falun Gong

Hello Fire Star. I am one of the few that actually goes to Falun gong meetings, Fa conferances, and practices. Ths is large part is due to my wife who is Chinese and has taken a interest in Falun Gong.

My own history is very deep with in the Zen/Ch'an teachings and Tibetan Buddhism. I feel very qualified to have some opinions about Falun Gong. Ill share a few:

1. Falun Gong is many thing to many people. It is political as well as spiritual, and sometimes those goals and views collide and cause problems. 2. It is a ever changing group with many sub groups with in the organization doing many different things. Sometimes this causes fights and disputes with in the organization that seem unsolvable. 3. Falun Gong, though Mr. Li is the founder, has in a lot of ways escaped his ability to deal with the scoundrals that have found thier way in. It seems that every Fa conferance he brings up the problem of bad students doing bad things. 4. I think most westerners have no concept as to how Asian religions and spiritual movements work. The embellishment and fabrication of ones past is part of the game. Ch'an did it, Daowism did it, and even confusionism did it. Westerners who expect a pure true history of these spiritual movements will be very dissapointed. 5. Chinese spirituality is based on bold claims, absurd stories and tails of the fantastic. The reason is "because you are not suppose to take them at face value!" You are suppose to see the story behind the story (koans!). Westeners get clunked on the head by this problem and communist chinese who did not learn this have problems too. A sort of Asian Fundamentalism.

Overall, I am not worried about Falun Gong. Sure, the extremist in the group are fanatical about the image the teacher and the group has, and will attack anyone they see as a critic "clarifiying the truth" as they call it. They actually harm the teaching more than they know it and are exactly the scoundrals Mr. Li talks about in his lectures.

As for Zhong Gong, what is interesting is Mr. Li's criticism on the school that he himself atteneded when he was still in China. His school, Falun Gong, was just an offshoot of the Zhong Gong school with a modification of the Chigong exersizes they had. If you read in the book Zhuan Falun about the chi gong teacher who bothered him and who he turned in to a snake, he is referring to the Zhong Gong founder Zhang Hongbao. That is his Fantasy story of breaking away from that school with its Guanding, papers of certification and levels of mastery. Apparently Mr. Li felt that Chigong should be levelless, without certificates or having an institution built around it..hence his call for no temples to be built. What Mr. Li did was just call forward the chigong individualist. This is no different than going to a Republican convention and finding a few Libertarians in the mix and making your our group with them.

All this stuff about Mr. Li being a god, buddha or whatever is just fantasy thinking from weak minded students. You see the same sort of wishywashy thinking in just about any religious group. Also in Asian culture there is this sort of game where the teacher plays the part of the cosmic universe. In my Zen studies it was very common to see the Roshi as the universal mind, and the roshi would play the part. It worked to get you to see yourself as for what you really are...but then again some roshis took the part to far and got in trouble.

What I think is more interesting is the morphing of Falun Gong from a spiritual movement to a political one. All of the practitioners are involved in some sort of political activity, it is expected of them now. This has chased off a lot of western practitioners and now many chinese also have left too. My view is that this will be thier undoing, it will pull them apart in every direction.

--Otomo 23:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] imitation = flattery?

Thanks for taking care of that mimic account - my first time being imitated. Guess I should get used to it if I continue to cleanup vandalism? Anyhow thanks again, cheers --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supression of Falun Gong page

Firestar, Fnhddzs has arbitrarily changed the title of the “suppression of Falun Gong” page to “persecution of Falun Gong.” Can you revert it back and warn him not to make such big changes without discussing it with us? thanks. --Samuel Luo 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Article: masta wong(trppo) I have added the source .... Why to be deleted?? What notability constitutes??

[edit] Chen Qingping

Greetings, I have created a new article about Chen Qingping, but need some input and a reference other than an external link. I have created the article from general knowledge so it needs some verification. Cheers Realtaichi 14:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chen Changxing & Chen Youben

Greetings, I have created a couple new articles about Chen Changxing and Chen Youben, but need some input and a reference other than an external link. I have created the article from general knowledge so it needs some verification. I am keen to finish all the masters on the links in the lineage, so would appreciate some more input and your magic touch. Cheers Realtaichi 18:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, coincidental my research materials are also packed away ready for a move of house too!! In fact we are going to be moving twice in the next few months, the second will take us to China for a while (if all goes to plan). Hope all goes well and look forward to the updates. Cheers Realtaichi 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neigong gone wrong

Hi Fire Star. As an expert in Neigong I thought you might be interested in what some newagers are promoting. Check these articles starting up in Wikipedia: Seamm-Jasani, Yaanbao, Boabom, Mmulargan, Mmulargan_School, The_Secret_Art_of_Seamm_Jasani. The only evidence I could find for these Wikipedia articles is what appears to be a fudged amazon series of reviews. Somebody on the review says it's all stolen from Neigong (see this link and scroll down to "?? Secret Art ??". It also appears to bear some cult resemblance to Kateda and may even be the same people.

Seems like exposing is this for someone with your knowledge and background. Kindly. Anon. 211.27.234.31 08:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] indian martial arts

any readers here would like to discuss the indian martial arts... we have an ongoing discussion and the page has been locked.. prior to my and another user's arrival the Indian martial arts page stated that the martial arts of southeast asia along with china and japan owe their arts to india either through the legend of bodhidharma (which the article suggested was true), that bodhidharma trained in varma kalai or some other indian martial art and that through the beliefs of this alex doss character... see august 13 2006 04:53. along with that the article claimed that the british were instrumental in destroying indian martial arts... and it also used religious textbooks to claim that there was an indian martial arts and that various gods and kings in the religious texts practiced martial arts without any citation... i've been trying to get some neutrality back into the article but am haveing difficulty talking to one user who wrote the original POV article... Kennethtennyson 23:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

As your mediator, I am reviewing your case for possible referral to the Arbcom. This is a huge dispute with many rules that only they can decide on. WikieZach| talk 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please help with Indrancroos (talk · contribs)

Indrancroos has turned the indian martial arts discussion page from a discussion about the merits of the article to a discussion about me... he has accused me of racism on multiple occasions, and yet has yet to substantiate anything about any statements that i have said that are racist... i have attempted to tell him to stop doing this and yet he continues... two whole pages of the discussion panel consist of his ramblings... as far as i can tell he is upset that JFD and I disagree with him. Kennethtennyson 03:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am sorry to remove some comments from your talk page and Thanks for re-storing Swadhyay page.

I am sorry Fire Star, I have deleted your notice para and I do not know how to re-store it. I thank you very much for re-storing Swadhyay page and reverting re-direction of Swadhyay page to Swadhyay Pariwar.


Swadhyayee 08:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom refferal

As you know, I am preparing to move your Falun Gong mediation case to the ArbCom. I am now to ask if you will please alert all parties about this matter. Thank you. WikieZach| talk 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martial Arts listcruft

Yeah, that user has been adding lists to tons of articles. I'm beginning to suspect trolling. Nandesuka 03:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

thanks for dropping by the indian martial arts page... really appreciated it. Kennethtennyson 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ARBITRATION CASE

I am putting into your hands the case of Falun Gong I just filed. You know more than I do about it. Thank you. WikieZach| talk 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your alert. Feel free to let me know what I can do further. Thanks, Fnhddzs 03:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I came back from vacation 3 days ago and tomananda is still on his. Has the arbitration commitee accepted the Falun Gong case? --Samuel Luo 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for warning.

I place a request for a warning on User:Topman89's userpage for vandalism of the North Lynn article.

195.93.21.10 20:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject_Asian_martial_arts

This project seems to have died - you're listed as a participant, perhaps we can join with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts (which also seems to have died) and revitalise the aims of both. -- Medains 08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Question...

Why do you believe that the Gaoism is not credible? Thank you for your time.

Not that it isn't credible, but rather it isn't notable. There is a difference. --Fire Star 火星 05:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kateda article "reads like an advert" ???

Hi, I wrote the bulk of the article - and I'm a sceptic! I'm especially pleased with the Controversy section, so I'm confused you think it reads like an advert. If it really does, please tell me where and either rewrite it, or I'll have a go??. Punanimal 13:42, 9 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I see what you're getting at. A couple of points -
1. the major source for the article is the Kateda book, which I own. It's out of print and extremely rare but I do mention at the beginning of the main section that the primary sources are the Kateda book and Google. I'm not sure how this could be made any clearer, but if you can improve upon it by all means please do so!
2. Wikipedia is fast turning into a treasure chest of things that are obscure, poorly documented and hard to find out about anywhere else; so in that light I really hope that people help to mature articles and add references *where* *possible*, but respect that there are some things (particularly the martial arts and some of the occult practices) that were simply never *meant* to be documented. And having said that, check out the article on England; there's practically not a citation! My Kateda article does better than this!
3. But I am not proprietorial. If there are some stylistic things that you don't like, then by all means please change them! In the case of the use of the word "intense" - well, it is damn intense! Lots of sweating and grunting in Kateda classes and the breath work is very (very) intense. The word "intense" is used descriptively - not as any form of advertising or judgement. Any spectator would agree. If this isn't "dry" enough, then please substitute accordingly, but I can't think of what would go here.
4. When I mention my own personal experiences, then this is simply to expand upon what little there is out there. I know it's strictly not quite WP policy, but I did Kateda for a decent period of time and whilst I would never count myself as an authoritative primary source, I'm hoping that other people out there will emerge and help give substance to the article. I'd love to reproduce the Kateda book for all to see, but it's copyrighted material and the author's father was senior in the Indonesian army, so they're serious people and I guess they wouldn't enjoy the copyright being breached.
I guess it really comes down to the question of how do we use WP for obscure and arcane bodies of knowledge? The strictest thing would of course be to suppress everything that doesn't strictly conform. But I think this would actually diminish the combined knowledge of mankind when we're dealing with "fringe-ier" subjects. Sure, when it comes to well-known things like, say, Windows Vista we can be as hard and tough as we like because it's current, live and well-documented. Things that are obscure, well, I'd like to think we can tread a little more softly in the hope that *eventually* the wonderful Wiki process will bring new people in and the article will eventually be fully substantiated. But I guess that's just a personal wish. Best wishes, Punanimal 23:19, 9 Oct 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 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: 12:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Request for assistance

Ref: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_Arts#Multiple_changes

A user has made a number of changes to karate articles, mostly just adding links to a particular organization (who has individual pages describing katas). One edit, however, has been to replace an article with a cut and paste from that site (Gojushiho dai, source) - I'm not sure what policy is for dealing with the user who performed a copyvio, I assume that the article should be reverted or rewritten?

Thanks -- Medains 08:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for blocking the IP address that I put up at the WP:AIV. Keep up the good work. I like your userpage by the way.--Seadog.M.S

[edit] User:Ghoonghat

Would you please block this user? He has vandalized BMW constantly over the past 30 minutes after several warnings. Thanks! --SquidSK (1MC•log) 14:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, beat me to it! Thanks again! --SquidSK (1MC•log) 14:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 18:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leitai

The Leitai was more than "entertainment" at one time. Prior to being outlawed by the Republic in 1928, people held private duels on the fighting stage and, as a result, many died. Nowadays, it is just a form of exhibition. During a 1986 leitai competition in Taiwan, the fighter's only form of protection was thin “gardening gloves”. There were NO weight classes either. Needless to say, this was a very bloody event! (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

If you have published leitai material (either chinese or english) feel free to add to the page anytime. I'm trying to expand the history section, which is only a tiny paragraph. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 00:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Sade Adu and Sade (band)

Hi, Thanks for your corrections of these articles but PLEASE don't chop off them as far as "was born - died". These articles are about musicians who REALLY made a REAL contribution to development of the modern music. Isn't it?? If you feel you are able to conclude the articles better with another apt turn of phrase - then OK. In another case PLEASE don't change the articles. Best, --loversrock 10:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding mediation templates in articles

Such as [8]. Keep in mind that these articles are viewed by encyclopedia readers, sometimes thousands of them. If there is a neutrality, sourcing, etc. problem, that should be indicated, but the average reader should not see a massive alarming notice that refers them into the bowels of self-references. —Centrx→talk • 02:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation of the Falun Gong article

Greetings,

not much has happened since you announced that we got mediation for the article. It's been locked for quite some time now. Do you know how we should proceed? ---Olaf Stephanos 10:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suma Ching Hai encore

hey! why did you reverted the minor changes? I thought this is a wiki? Those minor modifications are corrections and the earlier paragraphs contents are clearly wrong and be be substantiated if you looked up her public lectures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.140.157 (talk • contribs)

This is a wiki, but there are policies. How do we know that you aren't just making stuff up to make Suma Ching Hai look good in aid of converting people to her religion? You have to provide us with references to make statements like the ones you made. See WP:REF. --Fire Star 火星 18:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)