User talk:Ohconfucius/archive October 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User Talk Contribs Sandbox Userboxes Barnstars Logs Music Moves Uploads
Archive
Archives
.

Contents

[edit] Raffles Institution Anthem

Hi there, you recently deleted the Institution Anthem, citing WP:COPY. Another user restored it, requesting proof of this apparent copyright infringement. You have since deleted it once again, without any further explanation. Could you please offer some sort of substantiation? Thanks, - SpLoT // 04:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • it was clearly stated in the text that the lyrics were written by E. Jesudason, the Headmaster from 1963 - 1966, so the likelihood that the lyrics still enjoy copyright protection is strong. A deleting editor does not have to prove it's inside copyright, it is the other way around. The onus of proof of whether a piece of text is copyrighted is upon the editor who wishes to insert it. Ohconfucius 04:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Collection-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Collection-1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wizardman 15:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BGS

i strongly disagree with your edits to Brisbane Grammar School. The sections on extracurricular activities and the Academic Mission are both valid pieces of information about the school that many, many other school pages contain. if you feel wikipedia should not contain this type of information, i suggest you get cracking on removing said info from every other page instead of just this one. or better yet, you could discuss the removal on the grammar talk page. unless you can provide justification for its removal other than just pointing at a loosly associated wikipedia polciy, i feel i have grounds to undo your edit. Kiran 08:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • FYI, I am going around removing these long and dry lists of subjects and courses, as well as paragraphs about mission and vision from any school article I am coming across for the reasons cited in the edit summary. In addition to the policies and guidelines quoted, namely WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM, please also refer to the debates which have been taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. I believe there is ample justification for my edits, and therefore I am reversing your changes. Ohconfucius 09:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

im sorry. but there is a big difference to believing that there is ample justification and providing justification. personally i think refering to a few loosly associated guidelines is not justification enough to delete several paragraphs of information that until now has been perfectly acceptable. this might just be me, personally, but i thought the protocol was to express your concerns with the page on the article's talk page, and then after receiving comments and suggestions from other users, making the necessary corrections. im going to leave the 'corrections' that you've made, simply because i really cant be bothered putting them back in, but i will start a discussion about it on the talk page, albeit very lazily.Kiran 12:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 03:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Il Divo Greek.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Il Divo Greek.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Il Divo Encore.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Il Divo Encore.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Dfreeman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dfreeman.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki page on Huang Biren (singapore actress)

Hi, I would greatly appreciate it if you do not delete such a big chunk of information from the Huang Biren page of wikipedia, especially the whole section of her Personal Information. I have already added that part back, as well as the Trivia section. If you feel these information of her is not necessary, please discuss first? Thank you very much. fatty 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • You will see that the infobox has been expanded to include some of the personal information, but the rest just simply does not belong - things like star sign and who she admires most are completely unencyclopaedic and are a violation of WP:NOT#IINFO. Information like this is routinely deleted from biographies here on wikipedia. The trivia section has beenremoved per WP:TRIVIA. Again, some of the info, such as her height and name of her spouse are now already in the infobox' However, Wiki is not a gossip column, and in addition to being unencyclopaedic, having information about her house and the district she lives in may also cause her privacy to be violated. I appreciate you may not like the changes I brought, but these are in order to create an encyclopaedic article. Ohconfucius 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OK then. I respect your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrentzw (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Jingkang

Thank you for your work. You should join WikiProject China, we need more people like you to translate/edit articles between languages. TheAsianGURU 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fdny 'propaganda'

thought I'd grab your attention. Originally I didn't have the quotation points but I couldn't bear not putting them there. Some preliminary comments: (let me look up the definition of propaganda.)

–noun 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. 2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. 3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement. 4. Roman Catholic Church. a. a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions. b. a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions. 5. Archaic. an organization or movement for the spreading of propaganda.

I'll go for definition three and to a certain degree one (information, ideas, spread, help) but also removing all negative connotations of deliberate deception and/or ill intentions. so if you strictly define it, this is the falun gong propaganda, and I'm happy enough with that. There are other kinds of propaganda which are based on lies and are deliberately harmful though, like that of the CCP and the nazi regime. And for this reason maybe it would just be better to use two different words to describe them, since they are opposite in their intentions. Intentions are extremely important to understand. But anyway, for our purposes, please allow me to share with you some propaganda. I uploaded this magazine for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Compassion_Edition6.pdf

And solemnly request you find time to read the article 'Righteous Resistance'. There are a few others which you might like, but this is the one I would most be interested in your thoughts on. I find most of the magazine to be both sincere and intelligent in its analysis, though there is a bit of the staple you already know. For this mag I don't know in all cases, or how much, but there are certainly a number of non falun gong contributions. The first, for example. Just to stimulate thought, maybe for when you are on the bus or something next time with nothing to read... good luck. --Asdfg12345 15:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It appears to have been corrupted, so I could not get it to download correctly. It has now been deleted. If you could give me the direct link, I will download it myself. Thanks Ohconfucius 01:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh that is odd. Okay here is a link: http://files.asd.mm.st/misc/. I would be interested for you to read that article, (there's another which isn't bad "The Falun Gong Factor", actually a few are rather good) and spell out your views on it. I completely understand your frustration with Dilip. I don't want to edit war either, but I also think having that "research into health benefits" section on the front page is not completely encyclopaedic. Maybe some things can be done to make the sources clearer and more transparent. Or Dilip may engage in civil discussion. Anyway, you seem to have more thorough concerns and disquiet over Falun Gong than just his behaviour. I notice, for example, your deleting information about the persecution, and on the details of the persecution. This kind of thing puzzles me and I don't really understand it. Some people like Samuel were intransigent and he would attempt to fill the pages with stuff directly copied from his website, and basically refuse to discuss, or not discuss rationally. Then he would simply delete well-sourced things from Amnesty etc. about the persecution and not discuss that, either. I could never understand just what his problem was, and he never spelled it out or seemed to want to engage in a rational conversation. All one got from him was aggression and nonsense. You are obviously very different from that. But I am concerned over your concerns. Also, in terms of wikipedia, I think the persecution and everything about Falun Gong (and everything else involved in wiki) should be thoroughly and professionally documented according to the policies. Deleting sourced information is different from that. For example, if you were to raise concerns over some specific issues on the talk pages, like "Hey, I think there is too much information on this point because xyz, so I would suggest this solution...", there would be a kind of rationale and transparency. But you deleted some relevant things without looking to discuss. I am sure that you understand that you are improving the encyclopaedia; I see you as someone who is actually editing in good faith. So in light of this type of thing, I am kind of wondering whether the misunderstanding is on my part or your part. Anyway, perhaps you will read these few articles and find them engaging, interesting, disagreeable, whatever, but I would certainly like to hear your side of the story on this, if you would care to explain it.--Asdfg12345 05:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairmont hotel infoboxes

Hi. Thanks for adding the infoboxes. But you need to fix the "owner" field. Fairmont does not own most of its hotels anymore -- it has sold the bulk of them to entities such as Legacy Hotels Real Estate Investment Trust. Thanks. Skeezix1000 13:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I filled in the infoboxes with info from the article. I did pick up that the owner was the REIT for one of the hotels. I didn't want to presume that the ownership was consistent. Ohconfucius 13:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marcellin College

This edit has removed the list, but left the following:

(==Co-Curricular Activities== Students attending Marcellin college are offered an array of co-curricular activities which provide a balance between study. Some co-curricular activities offered include: )

Do you think it might be appropriate to finish the job, and remove the promise of a list? I'll leave the editing to your good judgement.

Cheers, Colonel Tom 14:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Southchina128.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Southchina128.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Hkf logo1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Hkf logo1.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Il Divo Encore.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Il Divo Encore.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Il Divo Greek.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Il Divo Greek.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xinhua in the Immolation article

Hello. I noticed a recent addition of yours "forgot government propaganda!" or something. I was struck by this. I started a comment in the article, but thought I'd just opt to send it to you directly. I'll just copy what I wrote so far:

are you comfortable with this paragraph? are you comfortable with your behaviour, morally, for repeating xinhua like this? I think it is terrifying. It may also be against the principles of wikipedia to so faithfully repeat detailed claims from state-propaganda. The CCP has published huge amounts of bullshit over this incident. I have also seen some Falun Gong reports, which are extensive, deconstructing every piece of the xinhua/cctv stories. How far do you want to go with this? Should we have all these juxtaposing claims: "CCP vs. Falun Gong"? On every point in the xinhua reports there are answers in Falun Gong reports. The page would be about 3 times as long as it is currently, and would essentially be a vehicle for this back and forth. I would suggest that it is better not to do that. I will take a look at the wikipedia policies. To me, confucius, you are slowly losing your credibility. I had believed you had some heart and were just affronted at Dilip's behaviour towards you. You seem to be taking this one step further now, seeking out and parroting vile propaganda which has harmed millions of people. I wonder if you have thought about that.

Okay, that's what I wrote. Whatever happens with the article, I am concerned about your role in this. I thinks it's really horrible that you would seek to try to, now deliberately--it can no longer be said that you are simply righting any wrong in terms of making the articles neutral in their reporting, you are clearly campaigning--vilify and defame an already persecuted group. People are getting executed, burned, tortured to death, having their organs snatched and sold etc. You must realise that by now, I assume that any kind of normal person who was honest with themselves would actually believe that is happening. Do you realise that the history of mankind is precisely against what you are doing? Everything that people consider good, worth striving for, virtuous etc., that humans hold close to their heart and the values they cherish, you are now on the opposite side of that. You are behaving as a villain does. Is that what you want? Have you ever thought about that? Is it just some intellectual game, one-up-manship, a personal contest?

Please note, this is quite beside anything that will happen with the article. That's a separate issue. I may make a post about that on the talk page. I'm not talking to you now in terms of wikipedia, but in terms of yourself, out of real personal concern. I suggested earlier you could read those things from the Compassion magazine which talk about all these issues, and then if you liked we could have a frank discussion and share ideas. That is still quite open.--Asdfg12345 03:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't want to moralise, it's not our jobs as wikieditors to do that, but there was only a very perfuctory mention in the article about the Xinhua allegations that I felt should be remedied. I would agree that it is bullshit, but I felt that the limited amount of bullshit I put there was genuinely necessary in the context of the document because even that most basic allegation by the Chinese govt was only represented by "The state-owned broadcaster claimed the self-immolators as Falun Gong practitioners" in the lead paragraph. I have already mentioned elsewhere that I feel my own increasing involvement with these articles is beginning to take its toll on my objectivity. I don't mind you taking a swipe at me, but I would regret that you have lost your faith in me, because I felt that our cooperation was working quite well, and oh, I think you are wrong about me. By all means, if you feel very strongly about the paragraph, as it appears you do, then please take it out again. I won't revert: we can wait for comments from Peer review. Ohconfucius 03:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer it split. I hear that that rule is "old, prescriptive, pedantic, derived from latin" and "not strictly wrong now". my friend who is studying latin just gave me a spiel. Okay, im' happy your way--Asdfg12345 09:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

hah--Asdfg12345 12:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] oversee the "terror campaign"

I quite like this formulation, which source was taht from? I can't find it in the Reid. If this is in a source we should use it.--Asdfg12345 03:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

okay got it. nm--Asdfg12345 03:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

btw I can't help grinning at the giant chunk of ccp stuff you pasted, when you've only so far shown a definite degree of strictness when it comes to any kind of quoting quoting. maybe it's not too inappropriate in this case..--Asdfg12345 03:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

about fixing the refs, please don't feel you need to do this. it seems a tedious job. I am happy to do it and you seem to have done a lot of this kind of crap work, whereas I have noticed a tendency I have just to skirt over this kind of housekeeping. on the persecution page though at least, I can scan the whole article and standardise all the refs.--Asdfg12345 07:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

do you think this means extremely scarce and careful use of CCP sources, from RS:

3.2.4 Extremist sources

Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.

I'm inclined toward this interpretation. I think some of the stuff on the self-immolation page may need to be scrutinised in this regard. --Asdfg12345 07:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. That is why I try to use sources other than Xinhua or Epoch/Clearwisdom when these are available and are relevant to the fact to be referenced. These two can be as bad as each other (or seen to be), and I have not removed the {{primarysources}} tags as quickly as the {{sources}} tag. Ohconfucius 07:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you may notice I have steered rather clear of Epoch/minghui where at all possible. I think it would be a shame to say that falun gong propaganda is as bad as xinhua propaganda. Actually, they are opposite in both their intentions and impact on the lives that are exposed to them. Please don't forget that.--Asdfg12345 14:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Too true. One is based on out and out lies to cover up paranoia, mass murder and despotism, and the other may rely quite heavily on spin to expose the lies. Ohconfucius 14:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

spin is not needed when you have sincerity.--Asdfg12345 23:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • You know that wikipedia makes no allowances for sincere non-neutral POV and insincere non-neutral POV ;-) Ohconfucius 02:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I had to chuckle at that--Asdfg12345 05:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I see too that you forged ahead with the ref work. commendable.--Asdfg12345 14:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You will need to explain why the CCP view gets such prominence, then. Basically NPOV requires the neutral reporting of all significant viewpoints. The view of the CCP is being reported here all along, and this is the first instance of a straight Dafa view--please consider the text in light of this. It is quite within the bounds of neutrality in terms of wikipedia, in my opinion. If you wanted to exclude all CCP views as well, that'd be fine, but right now it's not at that point. We should not go overboard and turn this into a CCP vs Falun Gong fiesta, but I think it's quite relevant in terms of context and understanding to have this information. I won't restore until you share your thoughts. I really think it's reasonable.--Asdfg12345 11:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(self-published sources are allowed in articles about themselves, too, keep that in mind. and clearwisdom.net does not qualify as an "extremist source.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfg12345 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been takng some strategic distance. Let me look at it again in the morning.

I took out the quote ""revealing the facts of Falun Dafa and the evil nature of the persecution"" because the material broadcast by the FG hackers would obviously be pro-falun gong, and is taken as read. It isn't appropriate to say or infer "propaganda". The quote more or less admits this was propaganda and uses words emanating from FG - Orwell/the Soviet Union saw to it that "truth" had this meaning. I thought the quote was non-factual because it was the party line from FG without bringing any new facts. I did not feel this was desirable from the 1a point of view either. I had read in a source article from CNN that they in fact broadcast a denunciation of the CCP propaganda about the self-immolations - this fact would be an acceptable piece of information I much prefer to the bit in question. Ohconfucius 12:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The key issue in my opinion is that in the course of the article, what Falun Gong practitioners say about the persecution be represented. This is 'information', too. The information content is how Falun Gong sees things, as evidenced in the quote. The CCP view is being represented, no question, there's a giant chunk of text there. That has almost zero information content except 'die now Falun Gong practitioners'. Yeah I think they broadcast False Fire. But there is a wider issue I want to say at this juncture, just quickly. NPOV requires representation of all significant viewpoints. I absolutely do not want some kind of clearwisdom takeover. I think the article now is pretty much done, except some extra details I can think of that I have noted down here which needed to be included in some places, and the organ harvesting section. But anyway, one important piece of information for example, is that Falun Gong practitioners felt personally hurt at the articles that He Zuoxiu wrote, and the Guangming daily thing, and the TV interview, and they went to talk to those people from their hearts and tell them their personal experiences with Falun Gong. Maybe it's a shame there were so many practitioners in China at that time. Having thousands go to do that seems odd. Anyway, this is the motivation. This needs to be mentioned, like "Practitioners were said to be 'hurt' by the reporting and wanted to tell x about their personal experience." -- I don't actually know how it should be. I think I've seen something like this on clearwisdom. In terms of understanding the cause of those appeals, right now it is completely unclear. So this is necessary for context and understanding. I don't actually think it should be that sentence above. It should be shorter than that. That is a bit FLG. But that needs to be represented. This is just another example. Well, actually, let me know how important you think this point is. I am just tossing the idea around for now, let me know what you think. --Asdfg12345 12:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That practitioners were upset by the article and the TV interview are, again, taken as read. 10,000 people do not gather spontaneously unless something significant has motivated them, and I think it already comes across when we said "inaccurate, even slanderous attack, unfairly maligning the practice." Noah Porter suggests that He's critiques may have been directed to intentionally provoke Falun Gong practitioners. Because the publication refused a right of reply.... There may be a better or stronger way of conveying this message, and we should of course examine how we could improve that, but I believe we already have the elements which convey the injustice done by He's article. As for the ""revealing the facts of Falun Dafa and the evil nature of the persecution"" quote, I believe it is double-edged - the quote marks lend it a potentially ironic character. To demonstrate that ambiguity: imagine if Samuel Luo had inserted it, I imagine you would probably want it taken out. Ohconfucius 01:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're probably a better judge of it. Aside from that I wonder if such a charged subject as this could get GA or FA. I think the prose is not too bad at the moment.--Asdfg12345 08:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unrelated

have you seen this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a, quite good, you might like it.

SEcond thing is, are you familiar with Ubuntu linux? I am using it now, and have not used xp for about 3 or 4 months already. The version 7.04 is excellent, I had never used linux before this, but at this point there's no way I would go back to microsoft. It's an ideological as well as practical concern. If you've got the time and inclination I'd recommend trying it out.

Okay that's it.--Asdfg12345 23:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HKArtsFest.png

Thanks for uploading Image:HKArtsFest.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kcslogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Kcslogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mandarin oriental group.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mandarin oriental group.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Majesty

Please take notice that Your Royal Highness' decree, worthy of all the barnstars in the world, has recently been defiled by a lawless bandit named Aranherunar. Smite him now! 08:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this article: Either point out exactly what you're referring to, or fix them yourself. Putting up a few tags as a rebuttal in bad faith without seriously listing out the problems is not a solution, and you should know that of all people. As far as I am concerned the article is reasonably supported with citations and I don't see how putting up a tag for the whole article in substitution of removing a complete section "leave[s] the community to judge." Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't be upset, I did not act in bad faith, by any means. I think you know I did try to fix it. As you reverted my edit and put back something which is blatantly promotional, and I was in disagreement and did not want to get drawn into an edit war with you, so I tagged it to invite others to express a view. Ohconfucius 01:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have reformatted the article and removed all unreferenced sentences which may be of concern, for the moment. Being a nice guy, I'm also going to put them all back once you forget about it. Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 12:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] k/m transcripts

Here are some transcripts where they talk about some issues related to the organ harvesting etc., about the law in China as well, and kind of context for the organ harvesting claims and perhaps why this has not been taken up as much as other human rights issues, and about the persecution of Falun Gong a bit generally. Kilgour also talks about the CCP's role in hundreds of thousands of brutal innocent deaths in Darfur: http://www.freechina.org.au/. There's a lot of useful stuff for the organ harvesting page among all this. actually also for some other stuff on the persecution page generally, just scanning them now. I love that Matas describes the CCP response to the evidence as being of a "very high level of frivolity"! That's got to appear somewhere in the article, for sure. chau. --Asdfg12345 16:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

unrelated to transcript note: What do you think it would take to the get the persecution article to GA or FA from here?--Asdfg12345 14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's looking pretty good, I'll put this up for peer review. I am a bit disappointed that there has been no response to the self-immo article, and will try and stir up some interest. Ohconfucius 01:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah that's odd hey, being such a hot topic!--Asdfg12345 10:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] excessive info for He?

i thought it would be a good idea to characterise his intentions quickly in the article. As it is now, it is not clear what would motivate him to attack Falun Gong in the first place. The now removed "a "crusader" against supernatural and "unscientific thinking,"" though, explains his motivations quite effectively. I propose reinstatement.--Asdfg12345 14:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

gracias por el barnstar, estamos aprendiendo uno de otro--Asdfg12345 12:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

de nada, mi amigo. Ohconfucius 12:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Do you know how to make the refs work better? Right now it will put "a, b, c, d" etc., but for each of those it does not put the specific page. The page appears in the wiki code, but not at the end in the references section. This doesn't seem to meet the requirements of presenting the info so people can easily find it. Especially for multiple book references, if one thing is cited to page 10, and another to page 56, currently the ref system does not provide for this. Do you know what I'm talking about? Know a better way of doing it that will not mean a lot of work?--Asdfg12345 06:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I haven't found a way for this to work; there is no mention in WP:FOOT either. Most attempts achieve bizzare results, so I must assume it wasn't designed for this, and so there is no shortcut. What I have done in the past is to make reference to a chapter rather than an individual page, which is less specific but will cut down some. BTW, WP:FOOT says we should avoid using 'ibid'. Ohconfucius 07:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinogrammes

Please, can you answer my question there : fr:Discussion_Utilisateur:Ohconfucius#Lecture_de_sinogrammes ? Thanks Arno Lagrange ✉ 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

preliminary reply on french talk page. Ohconfucius 02:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Paul Ney

I happened to notice your expertise in the French language and was wondering if you might be able to assist with the Jean-Paul Ney article. There are concerns that potentially libelous material being added from French language sources may violate WP:BLP. I'm hampered by the language barrier and am looking for some assistance. Thanks! Dreadstar † 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Will take a look at it. I think we need to nail down the sources. Some appear contentious and may fail WP:SPS and WP:RS. Ohconfucius 02:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for getting involved..! I was really at a disadvantage on the sources because of the language barrier! It's fantastic to have your input...! I removed one seemingly unsourced or poorly sourced section, but if you think any of it should remain, I'll leave it up to you. WP:BLP leaves us no room for poorly or unsourced content - it says to remove such content immediately. Thanks again! Let me know if you have any issues while editing this article, there has been some contentious editing in the recent past...as you can see by the talk page...;) Dreadstar † 12:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of High Culture
Merci bien for your most excellent improvements to the Jean-Paul Ney article with your knowledge of the French language and culture! Dreadstar † 14:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Ohconfucius 03:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for your kind words..! Dreadstar † 01:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wang Wanxing

[edit] DYK nom. Well done

[edit] thx

Victuallers 16:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 14 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wang Wanxing, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interesting news article

Did you see this? --Asdfg12345 14:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright 2007 Western Standard
All Rights Reserved
Western Standard (Alberta)
April 9, 2007 Monday
Final Edition
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 24
LENGTH: 699 words
HEADLINE: Sowing Confusion; Embarrassed by reports of live organ harvesting, China's sympathizers launch a high-tech disinformation campaign
BYLINE: Kevin Steel, Western Standard
BODY:
He posts his messages everywhere under several different names on Internet blogs and discussion groups. He writes letters to the editor anywhere and sends e-mails to anyone--anyone who might take seriously shocking evidence that the Chinese government "harvests" and sells live organs from political prisoners. His main message is that the Falun Gong--the group which first brought evidence of live organ harvesting to light--and the Epoch Times newspaper that broke that story are spreading propaganda against China's Communist government. And he's not even Chinese. He is Charles Liu, a 40-year-old Taiwanese-born technology consultant who lives in Issaquah, Wash., and does business in China.
Liu has been so active and so pro-Beijing in his writings that some Falun Gong supporters--in particular Epoch Times reporter Jana Shearer--have accused him of being an agent for the Chinese government, waging a disinformation campaign against them, trying to confuse people, and deliberately wasting everyone's time.
It's a charge that upsets Liu, who dismisses it as "a bunch of kooky friends making unfounded accusations. It's just a bunch of blog BS." As for why he devotes so much energy to attacking the Falun Gong and the organ harvesting allegations, he says, "My position is that I simply don't agree with their brand of politics, because I observed their politics turning from anti-Communist party, to anti-China, . . . and recently it's morphed into this anti-Chinese hysteria and that's going to be hurting people," he says. As an Asian-American, he says he decided to speak up.
He doesn't really explain, when asked, why he started a blog last year called "The Myth of Tiananmen Square Massacre" under the name of Bobby Fletcher (one of his online aliases, which he also uses to comment on the Western Standard's online blog). On that blog, he pushes the minimal 250 casualty figure that the Chinese government has always maintained died that night in 1989 (more reliable estimates put the figure at at least ten times that).
Liu's actions mirror disinformation campaigns waged by the Chinese government in the past. Typically, these include the deliberate spreading of false or misleading facts to sow confusion or doubt among the conflicting accounts. The classic example is the Tiananmen Square massacre; the Chinese government has maintained that no one died in the square itself, that there was only pushing and shoving on the streets around the square, resulting in a few military casualties. Overseas, the CCP relies on its United Front Work department, part of the Chinese intelligence service, to propagate its message. During the Cold War, the Soviets employed many overseas flunkies through their Disinformation Department.
Former Canadian MP David Kilgour, who co-authored a report on China's macabre organ harvesting industry, has received many propaganda e-mails from Liu. For instance, Liu has written repeatedly that a U.S. congressional committee looked into the organ harvesting allegations and found nothing. "[David] Matas and I gave evidence to that subcommittee and got support from both the Republican chairman and the Democratic vice-chair," says Kilgour. "I just came to the conclusion he was trying to waste my time, and I have other things to do."
Winnipeg-based human rights lawyer, and Kilgour's co-author, David Matas, really doesn't know what to make of Liu. "I don't know who he is, but what he does is spend a lot of time replicating nonsense to defend the Chinese government," Matas says. The only concern Matas has is that Liu seems to know who he and Kilgour met with in the United States to discuss their report. Matas discovered Liu had sent e-mails to politicians--and their staff--prior to the meetings. "The only people who would have that information would potentially be the Chinese government. I can't imagine how Liu would know we were meeting with those people," Matas says. "We're not super-secretive, but you can't find information on the Internet or in any public place about who we're meeting with, where and when." He himself has received at least 10 e-mails from Liu, all of which he's ignored. Maybe Matas is onto something with that approach.

Charles Liu at least uses evidence to support his claims, and he does add an alternative perspective to a Western society and media largely sympathetic to Epoch Times's bogus allegations. Shame that Matas and Kilgour has to resort to ad hominem attacks, as these two are largely political opportunists hired by FLG to give add little cridibility to the group. Let's not forget Epoch Times using FLG practitioners as "journalists" and running wild on blogs, accusing anyone with opposing opinions as CCP spies.[1]--PCPP 07:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] influence by juxtaposition?

Sounds fairly official, but those words don't appear at all on NPOV, and it seems a kind of vague charge. There is no attempt to create juxtaposition beyond what the relevant information itself brings to it. If you can suggest a better way of presenting the contradictory information relevant to the case I'd like to hear it. As it stands, the stuff from Zhuan Falun is directly relevant to the comments by Lee and Kleinman, and it can't be written off because of RS issues--since primary sources can have input in their own articles (given certain parameters, which this does not break). I don't mind changing "scared the hell out of them" to something like "Thurman speculates that the Party was frightened by Falun Gong" .... eh? --Asdfg12345 12:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I still would maintain that putting it where it was amounts to synthesis, maybe not in the letter, but certainly in spirit. It would appear to serve no purpose other than to assert "Sing Lee says the trance came from practising FG, but I (Li Hongzhi) say it cannot". In itself, the statement is not contentions, and may agree if it was put elsewhere in the article. I will, if I find an appropriate place. However I believe that it belongs in the 'Teachings' article if it belongs anywhere at all. Ohconfucius 04:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Falun_Gong&diff=next&oldid=164861731 -- There are plenty non-Falun Gong published accounts of these cases. I'm not suggesting the article be overrun with this information, but it cannot be excluded.--Asdfg12345 12:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The article already has sections on different forms of torture. I believe certain specifics are a necessary part, and have myself cited examples from non-FG sources to preserve independence and verification. I have been trying to eliminate the wholescale cross-referencing of one form of torture when mentioning other topics such as psychological abuse, and mentioning of specifics not reported elsewhere. Ohconfucius 04:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am more relaxed about some information being pared from different parts of this section; I had earlier thought there was some intention to play down or cover-up the facts, though now I see it is in the interest of the article. I'm for that; though would say in the interest of documenting the subject there be some definite information about the specific acts which are alleged to take place against practitioners in custody. This would be better off coming from non-Falun Gong sources. It is an extremely important element in understanding the persecution and the stage it has reached, a really important thing. The thing about trance state etc. definitely needs to be available to readers, lest they think this kind of notion is uncontested or not contradicted by Falun Gong. It would be possible to dig up a clearwisdom something or other... or just a sentence with hyperlinked text "this view is not supported by the Teachings of Falun Gong" and link to a specific section. I will scrutinise munro as well--he is better off responding to this. He probably addresses the issue specifically that Falun Gong does not make people go crazy and it's just a front to persecute them. I actually would prefer this. I feel it is slightly awkward to have the quotes from Zhuan Falun right there, but I didn't know any other way of presenting the info. A very brief comment with a link, and some specific language addressing that aspect from munro would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia.--Asdfg12345 13:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For something completely different

On the opposite end of the spectrum from JPN, there's this AfD. I was wondering if you might be able to help see if there are any French language sources that may help establish notability of these characters from an animated series in France... If you assist, it would be much appreciated..! Dreadstar † 01:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Wang_Wanxing.jpg.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Wang_Wanxing.jpg.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 22:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peng

I question the relevance of this addition. It's completely non-notable, etc. I have a mind to delete it. Do you have a problem with this? (Maybe in the worst case it could go somewhere on the overseas page, but it seems a useless peace of trivia for a reader who wants to learn about Falun Gong) --Asdfg12345 05:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't shed a tear. I just thought it ought to be there for the sake of completeness, as it did receive world-wide coverage. Ohconfucius 07:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Redirect of K202DB

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on K202DB, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because K202DB is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting K202DB, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Starferrylogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Starferrylogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)