User talk:Yueyuen

Welcome! Leave a message!

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[1]. Do not revert since it is not a consensus vote. Thanks. Fnhddzs 06:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiananmen Square Incident

Hi Yueyuen. It'd be good if we work together. I'm not quite sure on what type of pictures we'll need but as I'm posting here I've created a new page: Tiananmen Square Self Immolation Incident of 2001. I merely copied the text from the supression article to fill in the blanks so we can either change the whole thing or expand from there. --Yenchin 06:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yueyuen, the first draft is up check it out. --Samuel Luo 06:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am thinking about putting this article on "supression of Falun Gong" page, any idea? By the way have you located that video yet? --Samuel Luo 05:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that will be fun, you know what I mean. I am looking for it.

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 14:04, 8 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]

we obviously need a good mediatrtor, but waiting for one does not mean we can not make changes. Just in case you are not awared of this, Fnhddzs changed the title of the "Supression of Falun Gong" page to "Persecution of Falun Gong" without any discussion. this act clearly violates our agreement. I don't see you talking to him about it, why the double standard? --Yueyuen 22:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are promoting an entirely different version of the page - it's completely rewritten. We are waiting for a mediator, but you are now making major changes to the article. You're just exploiting the fact that the article is not locked. Does everything have to be enforced? ---Olaf Stephanos 03:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new version has information that introduce the inner teachings of the Falun Gong, the one you guys are promoting is a total whitewash, a Falun Gong promotional piece. I notice that you are not responding to Fnhddzs's violation of agreement, so stop lecturing us. The page is open for edits. --Yueyuen 06:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Fnhddzs, and I am not speaking in behalf of anybody. If changing the title back to "Suppression of Falun Gong" makes you stop the revert war, so be it. (Actually, I think it's already changed.) The new version of the Teachings page is so blatantly anti-FLG that those who strive for a neutral piece will never accept it. It's not about direct quotations but the way they are organized and tied together with mischievous and deceptive commentary. In addition, nobody is satisfied with the articles right now, so answer my question: why don't you wait for the mediator for the sake of civility? ---Olaf Stephanos 17:07, 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 22:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Li Hongzhi page

Thank you for the note on my Talk page. I'm not too concerned about losing some improvements in the grammar and readability of the Li Hongzhi article, although I appreciate your courtesy in letting me know about the revert. But I am rather curious why some people seem so strongly hostile to the Falun Gong. If you can help me understand this (e.g., by sending email through my email contact link), I would welcome hearing about it. —Wookipedian 01:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a very informative reply on my Talk page (which I sincerely thank you for), you asked "may I ask why you care to edit FAlun gong articles?" The answer is simple. I started by reading the major world religions page (which is now called "major religious groups" and which I have become rather involved in editing) and I became curious about Falun Gong as a modern religious phenomenon. So I went to the Falun Gong page to learn something about it. I noticed that there seemed to be some kind of intense controversy going on. At the same time, I noticed that the related articles had some problems in terms of grammar and wording, and that the quality of the article was suffering from the POV battles. I have a tendency to feel like I need to fix problems when I see them. And I have become somewhat curious to learn more about the Falun Gong (and those who dislike the movement). -Wookipedian 17:49, 29 September 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]

Falun Gong criticism page

I assume that you are not very familiar with Falun Gong's teachings - none of the other outspoken critics (Tomananda, Samuel Luo...) have ever alleged that Li would've introduced Falun Gong as a part of the Buddhist or Taoist religions. This is a very basic thing in the teachings. Since you haven't even sought to provide substantial evidence on the talk page to support your cause, I ask you to forthwith stop your revertions. ---Olaf Stephanos

Re: Samuel and tomanada

Hey, there, and thanks for your message. I brought it up on IRC for review; the checkuser was performed by User:Dmcdevit, and both User:Netsnipe, User:Gurch, and User:Centrx have weighed in to suggest that the block stay in place. In part, the prior RFCU was rejected due to the behavior of the requesting user, and the circumstances here are quite suspicious. Not sure how to put this, exactly, but we don't think we're wrong; if, however, you feel strongly and would like for this to be reviewed, I suppose you could post to WP:AN or contact the unblock-en-l mailing list to build a case of some sort. Hope that allays your concerns somewhat, or at least gives you a good place to direct them. I'm more than happy to have my actions reviewed, here. Luna Santin 08:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh; this is the first time I've gotten into a situation this complex. All I can offer is my apologies for not making a better call from the beginning. See either of their talk pages for our newer resolution. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, and especially for being so understanding. Keeping such a cool head under fire is very impressive, I'd say. Luna Santin 09:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. He should be able to edit, now. But do let me know if they have any further problems in that regard. Luna Santin 09:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vandalism

Please read the first sentence of this page. Making changes in a content dispute is not vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 07:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and edit warring is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing. —Centrx→talk • 23:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is a different matter from personal attacks and labelling edits as vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks or at least incivility on your part is pretty clear just by looking at the edit summaries in your contribs list. Comment on article content, not other editors. —Centrx→talk • 01:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restraint on FG-pages

Hi Yueyuen, your contributions to the FG pages are appreciated, but justifying attacks on another because others have attacked you unfortunately does not go down well in the Wiki community. I have noted that Luna has praised your behavior / restraint, but insisting too hard on the above points with Centrx may backfire. Jsw663 13:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yueyuen, whilst I recognize that Happy in General has engaged in clearly POV edits, please don't just revert articles like the Suppression of Falun Gong wholesale. This undoes a lot of the finer points that have been corrected. Your contribution can be more valuable if you targeted specific sections rather than reverted the whole article wholesale. I have also tried to include the CPC views directly from CPC sources, but your edit unfortunately undoes all this, leaving a more undesirable version on the Wiki entry now. Jsw663 11:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new approach to the Falun Gong article

Hello Yueyuen, 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 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Luo has been taken to ArbCom

Hello, I have filed a request for evaluating the consistency of Samuel Luo's behaviour with the Wikipedia policies. Please have a look: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Samuel Luo. We have gone through his edits from the past year, and if the ArbCom accepts this case, we can provide them with a list of his 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]

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]

Hello Samuel Luo

Hello Tomananda

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 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banning me as a sockpuppet of Samuel Luo is absurd. Samuel and I are two different people living in two different houses with different accounts. Can someone fix this mistake ASAP? --Yueyuen 18:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

You have been blocked based on Checkuser evidence. You should contact the person who blocked you, the checkuser in question or the Arbitration Committee via e-mail to discuss any unblock. — -- Nick ^t 23:59, 11 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.

What evidence? I demand the admin who banned me to provide such evidence. --Yueyuen 20:35, 13 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) 01:11, 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]