User talk:Kent888

Falun Gong edit disputes

Hello, I saw that you had posted a request for giving a warning to User:Dilip Rajeev on User:Fred Bauder's talk page. I don't think that's very productive; in fact, you had made these changes yourself without really discussing any of them. There are a couple of problems with your edits.

First of all, have a look at WP:Verifiability#Sources_of_questionable_reliability. The text has to be published by a reliable source, meaning that the actual website where it's found has to be reliable, or there must be a print version available for checking the facts. The website you provided is found from Ireland, and it has no connection with Falun Gong. I know that there's a biography of Master Li published in the early Chinese versions of Zhuan Falun, but basically anybody could have made changes to a random text file found on a private server. The criterion for Wikipedia is not "objectivity" or "truth" but "verifiability", and that's something to keep in mind. It's an essential part of the rules of the game.
Secondly, even if we could find the original biography somewhere and it would be exactly like the one you mentioned, I didn't see any mention about "organizing Falun Gong under an organization". That's an interpretation of a primary source, specifically forbidden by WP:NOR. For the most part, Wikipedia relies on verifiable secondary sources, and there are strict restrictions for the use of primary sources.
Thirdly, I welcome you among the editors of these articles. You are right in saying that I sometimes come across as arrogant. That's because I'd really like to see us discuss, know the policies by heart and adhere to them in every instance. The policies are rather complicated, and the first impression about how editing works in Wikipedia is often wrong. Two editors were recently banned for ideological struggle, and when I see edits that seem to resemble their edit patterns, I easily lose my temper, even though it's counterproductive. We can edit these articles and strive to reach a compromise that satisfies all sides, even "writing for the enemy". [1] I made a move to this direction by adding all disputed words ("religious", "metaphysical" and "spiritual") into the introduction. I suggest that we just agree to disagree about Falun Gong as such, try to consider opposing views, gauge the neutrality of our own words, use reason and logic as we answer to our critics, and not let the ArbCom down by starting yet another stalemate dispute.
As a list of references, please familiarize yourself with these: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ, Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not watching Falun Gong in detail. We will monitor it in general terms, and if the situation does not improve, engage in a second round, examining editing behavior. Fred Bauder 13:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Samuel Luo

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kent888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Mistake has been made here, since I can not leave message at these admins' talk pages can you do it for me? I ask for an explanation of this mistake. --Kent888 04:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blocks for sockpuppetry as confirmed by Checkusers are considered final. -- Netsnipe ► 06:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.