User talk:Samuel Luo

Welcome!

Hello, Samuel Luo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Falun Gong page

Removing an entire section of an article is considered to be page-blanking vandalism. If you persist in this behavior, I will alert an administrator. Wikipedia is about consensus. It is not up to one person to remove material he or she does not like. Jeff Fenstermacher 23:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, lighten up Jeff. It's not always vandalism to remove a section of an article. I just did the very same thing myself. [1] What matters is the purpose of the removal. I moved an unsourced claim to talk. (I know it's a bit confusing, since Luo himself seems to be the source. Jump into the discussion at Talk:Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong if you really want to get involved. --Uncle Ed 19:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "creating a section where it does not belong is a form of vandalism." This is incorrect. It is only your opinion this does not belong. It cannot be removed on one person's say alone. If you persist, I will ask an administrator to block your account.Jeff Fenstermacher 23:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jeff Fenstermacher 23:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Pilo t|guy 23:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong

I have blocked both you and User:Jeff Fenstermacher for an hour for violating WP:3RR. I have made it a short block in the hope that you will both cool down before your blocks expire. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Falun Gong was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 19:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong pics

A few pics is fine IMHO. Better than a huge block of text. CovenantD 23:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For an article this size, one per section wouldn't be too much IMHO. Of course that just means the article's too large. Wanna help work on breaking it down into separate articles and summarizing for the main one? CovenantD 00:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FLG

Hi. I'm afraid the idea of having two articles won't fly. I took a day off because I was bit frustrated myself. I hope in a day or two it will settle down again. The next thing we can do if it doesn't is request page protection. I'd protect it myself, but I've done a lot of editing on it. Hang in there! --Fire Star 04:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Dafa

Dear Friend, I really dont know why you keep deleting relevant and factual material from the Falun Dafa page. Please think about it isnt the information critical in bringing to light the terrible atrocities being commited against people like you and me? Could we be true to our own conscience if we knowingly try to cover that up? Why would anybody want to support the persecution by covering up all the truth? They say that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

All I am requesting you to do is to be true to your own conscience. Thank you. Dilip rajeev 14:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk

Samuel. you mentioned that you want to keep reverting unless someone stops you. ok. I would not get a war with you. I will try to invite a mediator /admin to check who is doing vandalism. Fnhddzs 00:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea of Falun Gong page

It is our common hope to end the revert war. There has to be end to the persecution of Falun Gong too. Each day we watch the verifiable death number increases, practitioners in China are dying each day. And that may just be a tip of iceberg.

I have said we don't intend simply deleting. Regarding the new page [2], I have come up ideas of putting a paragraph of critism for each paragraph of non-critism and shorten the "health research" part. Dilip has said he can delete the "awards" part. Does that sound better? I go back to the old page [3], I noticed that most critism parts concentrated in one section. And other parts (ethics, foreign views) actually contain critism. So I think my new idea is fair. I will try to edit a sample page with my new idea for you to check. Fnhddzs 15:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we have to admit that not all critism has a right base. For example, those based on unfactual things, based on misunderstanding, based on personal website. Again, we have to be neutral and balanced. But we have to be factual. We can not pursue the balance just for the sake of balance. That will create false things with actual inbalance. Fnhddzs 15:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deaths of Falun Gong members are the responsibility and fault of Falun Gong. Does the government persecute murderers by imprisoning them? No, because murder is not a religion. Nor is Falun Gong. Falun Gong are a cult, are murderers, and a terrorist organisation. Phanatical 18:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phanatical I don't understand why you left me this message. Is this your response to one of my edits? The FAlun Gong is a cult, I have no doubt about that. However I don't think practitioners are murderers and the Falun gong is not a terrorist organisation. --Samuel Luo 05:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made this point in regards to your reference of "persecution" against Falun Gong. The term "persecution" means the immoral oppression of one group by another, and the actions of the Chinese Government can therefore not be considered "persecution". Falun Gong practitioners ARE murderers, as evidenced by the hundreds of cases of relatives and friends murdered by Falun Gong practitioners for their opposition to Falun Gong, or in some cases for having a wheel of law spinning the "evil" way. They are a terrorist organisation as evidenced by cases including the previously mentioned murders, the hijacking of a television satellite, sending of anthrax-laced packages, threatening of medical practitioners among many other activities. Phanatical 10:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and controversies of Falun Gong page

Would you explain on the talk page why you removed three paragraphs? I'm not saying you were right or wrong to do so, I'm just asking you to share your reasons with the rest of us. CovenantD 02:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. I'm willing to accept any edit that is backed up by a good explanation, sound logic and/or solid references. It's the unexplained ones that usually cause problems. Now if anybody challenges I can pull up all of the deletions and they can be considered in context. CovenantD 18:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Dilip rajeev just violated the 3RR rule

I need to see all four reverts given to me in link form. Your browser's time is different from mine (I set mine to Wikimedia server time). Also, if Dilip violated 3RR I will decide how much time if any he gets. I don't "need" to block him for 24... blocks are preventative, not punitive. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong edits

You need to discuss major edits in more detail on the talk page. I'm reverting your changes to the intro until such time as agreement is reached in discussion. CovenantD 17:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel, once again I'm going to urge you to participate on the talk page more. There's several outstanding discussions about the intro that you haven't joined (1st and 2nd paragraph). Why don't you put your revised suggestion for the third paragraph on the talk page so we can discuss it? CovenantD 19:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think our messages crossed. See my suggestions above. You might also want to see the message I left for Dilip on his page. CovenantD 19:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. CovenantD 19:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reflection on you at all. Dilip objected to them, I looked, there were edits that we hadn't discussed, so I reverted back to the last version I thought we had consensus on until the dispute is resolved. I didn't want to go all the way back to the frozen version, hoping that we could keep some of the progress. That seemed possible with the 3rd paragraph but not the first. Please, don't take it personally. CovenantD 22:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wont do private deals with you, I will only follow the wikipedia policies. The NY times is a verifiable source that meets wiki standards and so the figure will stay. Dilip rajeev 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong

Hi Samuel,

I see that you can still edit the Falun Gong talk page. I did not figure out how to do it, since it is still blocked.

Could you please put the following regarding the vandalism in there for me? Thanks. Here it goes:

"I think i figured out what happened. The vandalism basicly only contained personal insults against users who are obviously a bit critical regarding Falun Gong. The vandalism occurred only on the Falun Gong talk page and some related user pages, and after the talk page was blocked the vandalism also immedeatly seeized (which is strange because he could have easily continued on the user pages or the still unprotected article page, which also should be a way more interesting target).

Also on the German Wikipedia this kind of vandalism basicly never occurred, because ussually the reason for vandalism is people forcibly trying to get their point of view into an article... talk pages are not interresting to them.

So I think whoever did this, did not actually want to vandalize anything or insult anybody, but just continued to vandalize the talk page so as to get the talk page blocked.

Why would he want to do this? Because as I said before the goal of vandalism is basicly always to forcibly influence article pages. If the talk page is blocked it will limit the number of people who can discuss the Falun Gong article to Administrators, and currently there don't seem to be many Falun Gong pactitioner among Wikipedia Administrators. Now since Falun gong practitioners could no longer discuss the topic, they could only directly change the article. But any change they made, was immeadiatly kicked out, saying that it was not discussed on the talk page.

So now it looked as though Falun Gong practitioners where vandalising the article page, and since whoever vandalized the talk page only insulted users critical of Falun Gong, it even looked as though they might be the vandals.

And I belive this is exactly what the vandal wanted to achieve.--Hoerth 12:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Is it so hard to believe that a Falun Gong practitioner could be vandalising Wikipedia? They're willing to commit murder, vandalising Wikipedia is nothing if they feel it's in their interests. Phanatical 15:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it has been repeated many, many times in Falun Dafa teachings that practitioners CANNOT (i.e. MUST NOT) kill. Anyone, who truly adheres by Truthfulness, Compassion, Forbearance and doesn't just pretend he's a practitioner in order to make true practitioners look bad, will be absolutely strict on this point. I would really like to know where did you get this information from, because this source (website, newspaper, person or whatever) must have SERIOUSLY misunderstood something in order to make such false allegations. Emanuil Tolev 06:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

biography

Hi, Samuel. As of discussion yesterday. [4]. nobody said anything about adding edits from the same biography you guys like so much. Please do not delete it. Thanks. Fnhddzs 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

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

Chen's reply

Hi Samuel, here's the link. [5]

You're welcome. I posted a short paragraph in the FLG discussion page. Feel free to ask questions either there or on my talk page. --Yenchin 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Fnhddzs on FG page again violated the 3RR rules

The earliest 2 links don't look like reverts to me, and least not the same ones as the last 2. -- Миборовский 23:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the reply. -- Миборовский 00:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your website

It's against Wikipedia policy for you to add your own website. Please read this guide on External Links, specifically the paragraph at the bottom of the section "Links to normally avoid." That's where I got my edit summary, word for word, when I removed it earlier and just a while ago from the Li Hongzhi article.

“

Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc.

”

Also see number 11 under that section for how to go about it. - CovenantD 01:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not post my website on wikipedia. This website was created in 2003, at the time it was possibly the only critical site of the FG. Obviously some editors find it informative so they posted it here long before I started editing. Old timers like firestar and Miborovsky would know. --Samuel Luo 05:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to normally avoid

Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)
In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.
Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
Sites that require payment to view the relevant content.
Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community (for example, sites that only work with a specific brand of browser).
Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content unless (1) it is the official site of the subject of the article, (2) the article is about those media, or (3) the site is being cited as a reference.
Foreign-language sites, unless it is the official site of the subject of the article or it contains visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables. (See WP:MOS-L for further information on this guideline.)
Bookstore sites, instead use the "ISBN" linking format which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.
Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.

If it weren't already linked, I'd have added Samuel's site. His article is one of a number of resources my organisation uses here in Australia in regards to awareness about Falun Gong.Phanatical 12:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that's fine. The point is that Samuel can't add Samuel's website. CovenantD 13:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phanatical Thanks for your support. --Samuel Luo 19:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CovenantD is absolutely correct here. Mr. Luo, I am going to converse with CovenantD. We will provide an adequate timeline for removing your website from the page. No conflict of interest should be available on Wikipedia. No hard feelings, ok? 71.106.174.113 03:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Phanatical has indicated that s/he would add it anyway, I feel no need to take part in removing it from the Falun Gong article. Any attempts by this anon IP will be met with resistance. CovenantD 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus vote

Don't get me wrong. I asked clearly is this a consensus vote[6]. , I did not ask about deadline! It is outrageous you are doing so! Fnhddzs 05:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vandalism, no revert war

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please respect the agreement that it is a consensus vote[7]. Do not revert since it is not a consensus vote. Thanks. Fnhddzs 06:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ARE cheating! The first half has nothing to do with MY question. I was asking

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

Fnhddzs 06:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong

Hello Samuel. What I suggest is that you await the result of the straw poll on the opening paragraph (Samuel's second suggestion) and use that as the consensus for the opening paragraph. As I explained on User:Fnhddzs's page, the straw poll, in my opinion, overrides any previously thought of consensus. Give it a couple of days for the straw poll to complete and for all heads to cool, then I'll unprotect and we can go on the basis of the results of the poll. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 07:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my 1st paragraph edits

I see the two as very different things. I waited one day (from 01:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) to 01:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)) to give people time to comment on the proposed addition by Fnhddzs, which consisted of three words. Tomananda was the only one who did, and he was okay with the addition. I don't see two hours as being sufficient time on a decision this large, especially if it's going to become the subject of revert war. CovenantD 14:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of those three words happened here. CovenantD 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear now that CovenantD said it is a consensus vote. He said both you and me are right. I don't owe you an apology. Fnhddzs 18:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also made it clear that I was referring specifically to the deadline in that instance, but that in general everything is done by consensus, per Wikipedia policy. CovenantD 18:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel. I am sorry that people wrote that. But please, how do you know they are practitioners? Did they claim they are practitioners? Even if they claim they are, those behavoirs are really bad and do not qualify the standard. I think you could escalate the issue to admins if this continues to happen. Fnhddzs 00:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Samuel. By the way, I did a search for you. the IP of 164.67.44.91 [8] is from UCLA[9]. Fnhddzs 00:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fnhddzs, although I am strongly against the FG, I have respect for most practitioners. As you know my parents are both practitioners and over the years I have met many of their fellow cultivators who I believe are good people. But that doesn’t meant there isn’t any bad actor in the FG. This person in his response implies that he is one and I believe that. Anyway, thanks for doing the research for me, I located the address of that IP after his recent attack using the same tool. :-) --Samuel Luo 04:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Li's article

I'm surprised you don't want to keep at least part of this;

As practitioners started spreading Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi stipulated that promoting the Falun Gong could never be done for fame and money, practitioners must not accept any fee, donation or gift in return of their voluntary promotion of the practice[10]. Falun Gong claims that Li Hongzhi's insistence that the practice be offered free of charge caused a rift with the China Qigong Research Society, the state administrative body under which Falun Dafa was initially introduced, and Li withdrew from the organization. However religious leaders of the Chinese Buddhist Association and Buddhist writers at the time published a number of critiques of Li's Falun Dafa. They pointed out how Li had changed the meanings of many traditional Buddhist terms, stating that because of those changes Falun Dafa could not be considered part of the Buddhist traditon and was heretical to that tradition.

I think it needs some rewording, but it seems relevant to Li himself in that it reflects both his stated position on fees and donations his relationship with the China Qigong Research Society and the Chinese Buddhist Assoc. CovenantD 04:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it needs rewording. The first two points seems to be interconnected. CovenantD 20:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

He teaches that his “great law" is boundless and judging mankind. It is weeding out "the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world" in a process called "Fa-rectification." Claiming to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind, Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his Dafa and expose what he considers to be the evil regime in China.

This is almost word for word the text that Tomananda submitted and other rejected for the lead section of the Falun Gong article. It's inclusion in the Li article appears to be an attempt to have it on wikipedia despite the controversy. It's certainly not appropriate for the lead section of Li's article. Try rewording it and finding an appropriate space within the article. CovenantD 20:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong talk page

Please point out where I modified other people's words on the Falun Gong talk page. Your comment implies that I have done so. --HResearcher 16:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You modified the header of Mr. He's post. --Samuel Luo 18:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't allowed to change misleading/false headers in talk pages? --HResearcher 09:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it misleading/false? How is it different from this header "Chinese government mass organ harvesting of Falun Gong prisoners" from a practitioner? --Samuel Luo 18:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Fire Star 火星 14:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FLG Chinese Wiki indefinitely locked

I see you posted in the Chinese wiki. Welcome to the chaos :P. The situation is even worse there. They don't seem to have a mediation policy so I requested a lock around June. "Elegance" is a known FLG troll in tw.bbs.soc.religion so I know it is no use reasoning with him. --Yenchin 15:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LHZ Pictures

Hi Samuel, sorry for the late reply. I've uploaded the LHZ pictures and did a little testing on my talk page, I'm not sure on how you're going to use them on the LHZ wiki page so I didn't do anything on the LHZ page. Feel free to tell me how you plan to use and describe the pictures. I'm looking foward to see your plans with the "Li above Buddhas" picture. --Yenchin 06:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's quite strange that the pictures have been deleted quickly. I couldn't find anything on the wiki deletion log so I don't know the actual reason. I'll try uploading the set again. --Yenchin 03:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And they're deleted again...I'm not familiar with the regulations so I think I'll just give up. You'll probably have to find someone else. Sorry.--Yenchin 06:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giving you a heads-up, Wikipedia has requested the info of the authors and copyrights of the photos. I've sent an e-mail to minghui.net for a few days but they still haven't responded. If they're still playing dumb the pics would probably be down by the 19th. --Yenchin 14:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong mediation

The Teachings of Falun Gong article is included in the official mediation request, which is made clear by the tag at the very beginning of the page. Even if the article is not locked, your involvement in a revert war shows lack of concern for the other party, and I respectfully urge you to stop and present your case to the mediator. Thank you. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will get back to you tomorrow, too tired to respond after a day of work. --Samuel Luo 05:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Informal mediator Wiki eZach| talk is preparing to move the Falun Gong mediation case to the Wikipedia:Arbcom. I have been asked to alert concerned (to the best of my knowledge) editors about this matter. Thank you. --Fire Star 火星 22:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talk page

Replied.

Also, I don't see why you insist on saying that FLG's teachings are religious. What is so religious about them? Is there a need to quote more FLG? Jsw663 14:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule violations

Concerning the ongoing edit wars on Falun Gong related pages, please try to avoid violating the three revert rule when discussion is still an option, as Wikipedia won't explode if a preferred version isn't up constantly. By not reverting edit wars can calm down and there can be left room for discussion, because either way, if protection comes along, it would be m:The wrong version anyway. I have blocked user:HappyInGeneral for reverting the edits of multiple users, but have not blocked you as you were one of several editors who reverted him (and he was removing information as opposed to adding). Nonetheless, I would recommend if you intend to make changes on the pages, it would be best to do a little bit at a time instead of a mass article change, as otherwise people have a hard time determining the contents of hte change and are much more likely to revert it. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 22:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

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

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

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

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

Falun Gong mediation

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

Hi Samuel,

Please stop discriminating against Falun Gong. I know you are offended because Falun Gong say's homosexuality is bad and should be given up by practitioners. But that was never spread in society, and they don't at all discriminate against homosexuals. I know because I lived together with an homosexual and did Falun Gong at the same time. And none of the Falun Gong guys suggested that I should not live together with someone gay or whatever.

So they didn't hurt you, but you are hurting them. You say the persecution should be stopped. But how could it stop as long as there are people like you who are spreading all that Communist Propaganda used to demonize them? You are so full of hatred, you even spy on Falun Gong people so as to find stuff you could use against them. But on the other hand you called the report about the concentration camps and the organ harvesting a lie without even trying to proof or disproof the arguments contained therein. Don't you care if those people are killed? They are killed and regarded as worthless precisly because of that propaganda you are spreading. So now instead of making up fake posts, why don't you say something about the report on the organ harvesting itself as well as the recent speaches by David Kligour (you can find them on YouTube).

Sincerely --Hoerth 20:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel isn't discriminating against Falun Gong. Samuel is highlighting the atrocities committed by Falun Gong, and the immoral activities endorsed by Falun Gong. Falun Gong is a cult, and Samuel is absolutely right in highlighting their disgusting activities. Further, he has, in fact, quite convincingly disproved the organ harvesting claims on his website and all the other lies perpetuated by Falun Gong against the Chinese government. I would ask you if YOU care if people are killed, because it's Falun Gong that are killing people every day. Phanatical 02:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now instead of trying to create hatred where it does not exist, why don't you just go down to the subject matter and answer me personaly. There are no arguments in your article regarding ANY of the 18 different kinds of evidence as described in the Kilgour-Matas report. You are basicly only mentioning the guided tour to Sujiatun Hospital and therefore concluding that organ harvesting in any of the other locations (at least 36 have been reporteted) doesn't exist. Do you think CCP can't manage to clean up an OPERATING TABLE in more than 3 weeks? Why where no tours to any of the other locations allowed? CCP reported itself that it has done over 40.000 Organ transplant operation since the persecution. There are only about 2.000 executed prisoners a year, and certainly not all of them are natches, and certainly not all of them agreed to be "harvested". So where do they come from? (keep in mind that organs will die after a few hours, yet CCP claims they can find you even a matching heart within a couple of days).

Now it is possible that i didn't get it right. But it is all mentioned in the report. So why don't you go read it, and THEN try to discredit the specific arguments contained THEREIN. By the way Amnesty International is also doing it's own research regarding the organ harvesting on Falun Gong. Amnesty also said ". This is primarily average citizens of China who are exercising their fundamental rights. As a human rights organization, we did not document even one single incident where a Falun Gong member has hurt even an average citizen in their practices. They've never done any harm to other people, so why do you round up these people and imprison them?" --Hoerth 18:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Samuel and myself will testify to seeing firsthand, the hurt Falun Gong has caused to both members, and non-members. Phanatical 09:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Hello Mr. Luo. I have taken a lot of interest in your website, having only noticed it today. I am actually somewhat impressed with your findings and claims (let's call them that for now, although I agree with most of your contents). I lived in China and witnessed the spread of Falun Gong myself during the Qi-Gong wave in the 1990's, and I'm wondering a bit about your background. I think we have a lot in common, and can work together in revealing the truth about Falun Gong. I'd like to know, aside from Wikipedia and having the initiative to start your own website, did you do anything else in this process of exposure? I am very interested. Get back to me when you can. You can either reply on my talk page or e-mail me at hongshi_fang@hotmail.com. I look forward to talking to you. Thank you. Colipon+(T) 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your response. There was something that I have been trying to find over the years, the video tape distributed by Falun Gong before 1999 that showed Li digitally remastered (very badly at that) to hover and other outrageous abilities... of course, he was giving lectures too, but while he was doing that he was sitting in a chair. If we can find that and publicize it, it would definitely be a big blow on Li's part. Although this video was distributed in China only, I got it a few months before the crackdown, so chances are any remaining copies have been burned by the Chinese government. Colipon+(T) 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed three-strike rule

Hi Samuel, I've proposed a three-strike rule to govern editors' behavior on the discussion page of the Falun Gong Wiki entry. If you can contribute, please air your opinion and/or agreement / disagreement to the proposal. Thanks! Jsw663 18:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new approach to the Falun Gong article

Hello Samuel, please see the Falun Gong talk page and state your opinion about my proposal concerning a strict source policy. You know that the situation is tense, so we really need to find a common set of rules that is absolutely fair to all parties. ---Olaf Stephanos 21:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel, the 2nd paragraph on the Suppression page was written by Colipon, not by any of the practitioners. We can move the quote from Julia Ching to a more appropriate place, but now that a major part of the articles is locked, it's hard to find the best solution. In addition, from now on, we have to back up each and every claim; for example, there is no source indicating that the Chinese government has called Falun Gong a "fraudulent, commercial cult organization". No doubt they've done that, but you have to find a source that states these exact words and add it to the references.

I'd also like to point out that you directly broke against the new proposals by entirely removing the quote from Julia Ching and adding expressions like "evidence shows" and "unaware of the Falun Gong's attacks and the cultish nature of the group". If you want to challenge Mrs. Ching's authority, you have to find an acceptable source for that. In addition, you should basically add this information to another chapter. The only neutral way is to say "XXX says in XXX:", and that's it. This is what we did, but after your editions it didn't seem so neutral anymore.

You also blanked several pieces of sourced text that we wanted to have there. We all want to get ahead with the articles, and also give you a chance to add material from sources that meet Wiki standards - and make it stay there. If you add an anti-FLG picture that's published by a third-party, we can't do anything about it. If we add a picture from Amnesty, you shouldn't do anything about it, either, because Amnesty International is clearly a valid source for Wikipedia.

Don't you think this approach is the only way to alleviate our problems in the long term? ---Olaf Stephanos 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not remove any text at the moment; we can resort to ^{[citation needed]} tags to mark out passages that need backup. If the other party is unable to provide any, we have all the legitimate means to remove any statement. Don't you think it's convenient for all of us? ---Olaf Stephanos 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel, are you willing to co-operate or not? You're saying that you agree with my proposals, but your actions speak louder than words. I really hope we can get out of this stalemate. You'll just have to start looking for material that you can use; meanwhile, no blanking. We have to start step by step, so why cannot you just add the ^{[citation needed]} tags whenever you feel it's necessary, or provide a balancing quote/picture from somebody else? Why do you have to delete our editions? Please answer me. ---Olaf Stephanos 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, if I only could apologize on behalf of other persons, I'd do that. My intention is exactly to transcend this situation. The practitioner editors have made mistakes, and I do not agree with them blanking your sourced material, either, definitely not! If they keep on doing that, and the source meets with Wikipedia standards, I will personally help you to keep it in the article. However, you must be willing to do the same. We can dispute endlessly about the veracity or origin of quotes or pictures, but we cannot take it as a starting point: we have to decide that the only thing that matters is the source that has published them. ---Olaf Stephanos 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read my formal proposal on the talk page and give your opinions about it. Even if you don't think that a picture does any good for the articles, we may want to have one. If its source is valid, you're basically overstepping the boundaries we're trying to establish. This is what I intend to do: we have to find a set of rules that applies to all parties in all situations. You should realize that it gives you the freedom to act and protects your rights as well, not only ours! Think about it: if you start collecting material that's directly quoted from admissable sources, our party has no legitimate way to get rid of it! ---Olaf Stephanos 23:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a waste of time, Samuel. They are here to protect the Dafa. In their little minds, they are the righteous people, no matter what they do. --Yueyuen 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded with my objection to every one of Olaf's points. Unfortunately I cannot say it complies with Wiki rules because it makes too much judgment on content, and requiring neutral, non-involved mediators to get involved. Jsw663 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A response to your comment on my talk page

The suppression page has not been rewritten, it has been revised. The only removed paragraphs were from the Chinese version of People's Daily. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English for the conditions on using this kind of material. We have added some material from reputable sources and tagged a few unsourced statements. There's still a lot of work to do, as we'll start enforcing the policies strictly from now on. For example, I removed the video clip of the self-immolation incident for the time being, since we're currently looking for good third-party material that offers a similar description of the events. Afterwards, there shouldn't be any disputes about its inclusion. I can give you one friendly advice, Samuel: learn to search for admissible sources that you can exploit. It's the only way you can keep editing these articles and cooperate with us. Oh, by the way, the Tiananmen Square Self-Immolation chapter was moved into a separate article, and it was done by some random Wikipedian, not by any of us. I don't think it was necessarily a bad idea. --Olaf Stephanos 21:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, the self-immolation incident must be third-party but FG's dismissal of the incident can be pro-FG? Talk about bias! Jsw663 21:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

"It has never been treated as a separate page until you came." That's unfair. It's in the article mainspace. I stumbled across it from the article Cult_suicide#Falun_Gong_Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation (there used to be a link the page there) and found it interesting, so I tried to clean it up. If it's not an article, then don't put in the main space. If what you say is true, then they should have made a user sub-page. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been taken to ArbCom

Hello Samuel, I have filed a request for evaluating your behaviour's consistency with the Wikipedia policies. Please have a look: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Samuel Luo. We have gone through all your edits from the past year, and if the ArbCom accepts this case, we can provide them with a list of your worst violations in reverse chronological order. If you want, you can give your comments on the aforementioned page. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom request

Hi Sam Luo,

I was referring to the organ harvesting debate a few months ago (which I didn't really participate in at the time) where it seemed to me that references to allegations were being removed by several anti- editors. I am going to put an opinion on the Arbcom request page that I think Olaf's request is unnecessary. If it does go forward, I will position my input towards the end that it become a referendum on the entire issue of the FLG pages, and not you personally. --Fire Star 火星 14:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam. I'm sorry you were offended, but you guys have been rather zealous in your opposition of, and willingness to engage the FLG bunch in doctrinal debate. Notwithstanding, the anti- editors, IMO, have certainly been more reasonable to work with, but I have to consider that my personal biases may be at work in that perception. I will be happy to qualify my statements in regards to your participation (I don't recall precisely that you were an agent of that process, but I do remember a lot of wholesale back and forth reversions; plus the Arbcom will be able to review the actual history regardless), or to make any statements that may seem appropriate at the request page. Generally, I'd like to assure you of my optimism. I'd advise us all to relax a little, look in at the Arbcom page and contribute when asked to but not to worry too much. At this point, the affair is mostly out of our hands, at least. I've had some dealings with some of the Arbcom editors who seem fair enough and am assured that things will improve, at least a little, as a result of the input of a wider selection of neutral editors. --Fire Star 火星 13:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 05:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the Falun Gong evidence page

Hi, I suggest that we move all discussion onto the project's talk page. The evidence page should be kept clear and concise. I did this on my part already. ---Olaf Stephanos 13:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Li Hongzhi

I have opened a discussion regarding the disputed edits to Li Hongzhi. You can find the discussion here →Talk:Li_Hongzhi#Disputed_Edits. Since you are involved in the discussion about the article and topic in general, your input would be appreciated. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you.Carlosguitar 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I'm glad you are concerned about edit warring. However, it seems to me that you are one of the most aggressive edit warriors at Suppression of the Falun Gong The Epoch Times, Li Hongzhi, and Falun Gong. Please restrict your editing to pursuing amicable dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 21:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't stopping. You've made three more reverts since this message. Any more and you will be blocked. Please follow my advice, on my talk page and HappyInGeneral's. Dmcdevit·t 22:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not acceptable, unfortunately. You've focused exclusively on this set of articles, edit warring to get your way, and refuse to listen to my recommendations, preferring to fight instead. I suspect you already know that you will soon be banned from articles relating to Falun Gong by ArbCom when that case closes, and your statements on my talk page "I resumed my reverts on May 3rd seeing that happyingeneral was not punished." and "I am leaving Wiki soon, blocking me means nothing to me now." read to me like an intent to disrupt, and go out with a bang before the ban comes into effect. This is not constructive, and, seeing that blocking means nothing to you, I've blocked this account indefinitely. Dmcdevit·t 06:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hero in My Heart

Good Job!! Thanks, I hope you can help to keep these FG pages honest. You can email me at tafg2002@yahoo.com. --Samuel Luo 05:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.
Mcconn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
Samuel Luo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.
Tomananda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.
Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got another Question for you Samuel

Assuming Falun Gong is the way you and the Communist Party describe it, and that there are no labor camps, but only all those "Re-education Faciliies build specificly for people decieved by the Falun Gong cult" as the Communist Party put's it, and the only human rights problem China has is wipping out something so evil that it must be whipped out everywhere immeadiatly. Then using violence and brainwashing to cure people from their obsession with Falun Gong would obviously be the lesser evil and propably the only way to help people so obsessed, and it is therefore totaly fine for people to turn a blind eye on the "pesecution", which could hardly be called that since it really is just the Communist Party Re-educating it's citizens into sanity again.

If that where true, If people where to look at Falun Gong or the persecution for themselves, they would only see that you and the Communist Party where indeed correct and all Americans who said Falun Gong was totaly peacefull and the persecution unjustified, where indeed merely evil capitalists attacking China...

Then why did you ask people to not look at Falun Gong or the persecution for themselves? --Hoerth 12:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Academic views on Falun Gong

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

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

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

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

Clarification motion

A case (Falun Gong) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]