User talk:Mcconn

Greetings. Regarding the Falun Gong article, I've reverted your edits because they were sweeping and tended to change an emphasis from reporting FLG to asserting things about what FLG teaches. The bit about changing "elements from" to "similar to" for example. I've studied the disciplines in question and I know enough of them and FLG to make an argument that they aren't actually similar, IMO. Some of the language is the same, but the intent is different, IME. Just as Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy says that I can't say in the article that they are definitely different (it is only my opinion, after all), we cannot say that they are similar. We can say that elements (in this case, terminology) are similar to that used in Buddhism and Taoism, such a statement is neutral. It is the value judgment that gets dodgy. The Talk:Falun Gong page has long archived discussions on just these issues, and you are welcome to join in there to hammer out things about the article you may believe to be unfair or inaccurate. Also, the following links may help:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

Regards, --Fire Star 19:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong article

Would you point me to the reasoning why the stuff on Li can't be included. I don't see a topic on the talk page about it. CovenantD 04:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's kind of mixed in there. This is what I said:

Samual wrote: Also, the sentence “According to a Chinese state-sponsored news report published six days after the persecution of Falun Gong officially began” in origins section is inappropriate. How would you like it if I added the following statement “According to the Falun Gong which is considered a deceptive cult by American cult experts” to all statements from the Epoch Times and the group?

It's different. The circumstances of this report's publishing make it unacceptable. I think most editors here have a fairly good idea of how the CCP uses it's media and "statements" by its citizens in mass political campaigns or persecutions such as this, especially at the begining to get it rolling. Mcconn 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the info in the origins section taken from the Chinese newpaper article. This article was published by a state-run newspaper six days after the persecution of Falun Gong began. There's no way we can include this as a valid source. Besides, information about Mr. Li's abilities as a child have no context in the "origins" section. Mcconn 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for pulling it out for me. I disagree with your reasonings and think it needs to be reopened for discussion. Would you mind putting the bit you copied here on the Falun Gong talk page as a new topic? I'd rather explain my reasons there for all to see and respond to before another edit is done. CovenantD 04:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit an archived talk page. If the discussion is still relevant, bring it up on the current talk page. Once it's archived, it shouldn't edited. CovenantD 18:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice the disclaimer until after the edits. Mcconn 19:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong intro paragraph on numbers

We're currently discussing that on the talk page. Please don't make any edits to that paragraph until we've come to an agreement. CovenantD 19:13, 4 June 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 14:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organ harvesting allegation

Hey Mcconn, thank for the link: http://organharvestinvestigation.net/. Im going to look through it then make some comments on the Falun Gong talk page. --HResearcher 03:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about FLG

This isn't meant to harm you or anything. I just have a few questions that has been bothering me, and you don't have to overtly consider any of their implications. And I wish to receive sincere and honest feedback from you.

Did you receive your Falun Gong teachings inside China?
Whose inner workings do you think you have a better understanding of, Falun Gong, or the Chinese Communist Party?
Do you know Mao's family background better, or Li Hongzhi's?
Have you ever researched Chinese sociology or history for a paper, or even religions in Chinese history? If you have, tell me what you've researched. If not, I would advise you do some. The Taiping Rebellion would be a good place to start.

Colipon+(T) 02:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Colipon+(T) 02:35, 31 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]

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]

I'd love to get involved, but I'm completely on the side of Falun Gong and against the Chinese government on this. About half the time, when I'm highly partisan on an issue, I can still write about it neutrally. But there's no way I can mediate on this one. Sorry (but see proposed compromise on my talk page. :-) --Uncle Ed 17:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed three-strike solution

Hey McConn, I've proposed a three-strike solution in response to some editors' behavior. Some appear to deliberately disrupt any consensus process, and would gladly see an edit war take place just so that their heavily-edited version is kept thanks to an administrator protecting the page by locking it down.

I hope you can support it, thanks! Jsw663 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi McConn, I've made two new proposals /amendments to this solution that you can approve / disapprove, but requires your input. The first one is to clarify what an 'edit' constitutes, and in this case, it means both addition + deletion. The second is to prevent section blanking. Please reply on the FG discussion page! Thanks. If these basic behavior rules can be OK'd by the main editors from all three camps, then at least we will have made some progress, albeit slow. Jsw663 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Li Hongzhi

As much as I appreciate your contributions to the articles of Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, The Epoch Times and other FLG-related articles, it quite frankly brings forth a sea of frustration with the editors attempting to express NPOV on these pages. These expressions are made impossible by a few FLG editors whose every edit is either removing something they believe is harmful to FLG's reputation, or adding things claiming Falun Gong's benevolence. I do not support what the Chinese government has done, but to voice pro-FLG praise exclusively is frowned upon deeply. Not only does it create another gap with Wikipedia's integrity, but becomes, in fact, abuse of the Wiki system.

I do not know who you speculate as being spies from the Communist Party of China, who is their voice. But it seems to me this has become a editing conflict, not between FLG and CPC groups, but between FLG and NPOV. No one here supports CPC persecution. It is a bad thing. But the CPC's wrong deeds has always been used unfairly by Falun Gong as leverage to justify the promotion of their own doctrine whose controversy (especially that of Li Hongzhi) extend far beyond China's borders. Political scientists, religious experts, Qigong practitioners, cult experts, western sinologists and even the western media have all questioned the legitimacy of Falun Gong. When an article is supposedly "opinionated" or "biased" against Falun Gong it is immediately removed regardless of its source, while a great deal of references on contentious pages that are pro-FLG are only sourced from Falun Gong websites. Using these methods dipped in the tar of ignorance is polluting the quality and value of the articles in their entirety.

I, as a promoter of NPOV (as even you have so gracefully noticed), has constantly attempted edits that most reasonable people would consider as having a slant in favour of Falun Gong. But even these efforts have been constantly trampled upon, many times without an explanation by the few individuals, all of whom happen to be pro-FLG, none of them pro-CCP. As a direct result of this, my wiki spirit lies broken, and I am trying to grasp on the little respect I have left for those of you who continue on this route of a horribly inconsiderate nature. I am disappointed, frustrated, and after three previous attempts to come to a fair and workable compromise, my cause still lies hidden under a mask of NPOV that never existed with Falun Gong editors.

I have waited until today to point out names, but I feel that after months of observation, there is no one on here attempting to speak only for the CCP, but it is justified for me to note ASDFG, HappyinGeneral and McConn as users who have abused the articles in the most flagrant fashion solely on behalf of Falun Gong. As you may note from this pattern it would be incredibly difficult for any Wikipedia administrator in his/her right mind to be convinced that Falun Gong editors' recent actions are appropriate, fair, or acceptable to the rest of the Wikipedia community. This is a problem of a very serious nature that I would not hesitate to report to Wikipedia's authorities should it persist. I do not think this is a situation desired by any party, but if necessity dictates, serious measures must be taken to deal with it.

Sincerely, Gordon Fang. Colipon+(T)

Hey, Gordon, I assume you will read this. Please take it easy. We are not trying to abuse wiki. At least for me, I have read a bunch of other-subject good wikipedia articles and would love the Falun Gong ones to read like them. Mostly, they do not, at the moment. I have noticed many of your contributions display a measured a balanced tone, which is a refreshing and welcome change from other editors. Some editors do think the persecution is either non-existence or justified, and even both at the same time, somehow. Some of them have made wicked jokes about the torture methods applied to Falun Gong practitioners, and that is really appalling. No one has tried to remove (except Omid, I think) controversy. I don't want to remove controversy. It would be silly for us to do that and neither do we want to. I want it presented properly and neutrally, and for it not to misrepresent the teachings of Falun Dafa. You can go to the teachings page and read two sections which have been the subject of much dispute for months now "Sickness Karma" and "Deviation of Mankind" - they are called something like that. That is the kind of thing we are dealing with. Anyone can see that stuff is rubbish and does not belong on wikipedia one bit. In the end, we are making edits which are in favour of Falun Gong, and you are making edits which are not in favour of Falun Gong. That is actually good, and I think it is only with this contrast will a good and balanced article be achieved. Do you see what I am saying? The positive and negative in this case can compliment and enhance each other, and we can each ensure the other is sticking to wiki policies. If just Falun Gong practitioners were editing it the wikipages would look like falundafa.org, and if just anti-Falun Gong editors were doing it maybe they would look something like Samuel's website. Neither of those things is in accordance with wikipedia. So in this environment we can each bring reports, text, things like that, and just report them in a simple and clear way. I don't think the problems are so big. The wikipolicies are extensive and very helpful. I don't know if I have addressed your issues. I hope so. --Asdfg12345 23:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it really hasn't addressed any issues. To me this is not a pro- or anti-FLG edit war. It is a conflict between pro-FLG and NPOV, and how the pro-FLG side has, and continues to attempt justification on the removal of any material that seems to tips the balance against FLG in any way, regardless of its status as NPOV. Pro-FLG editors constantly change the topic of discussion to fan emotional steam through sections on persecution, suppression, etc., which has never been the topic at hand. The topic at hand is the pro-FLG editor's intolerance to criticism from any angle. Repeatedly, you have even removed "controversial" from Li Hongzhi's article without stating any reason whatsoever. And when the edit war has gone on for... oh... a year now? It is time pro-FLG editors changed their act, or something drastic is done. Colipon+(T) 09:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the issue is as black and white as you make it out to be. Yes, it's clear that Falun Gong practitioner editors, like myself, come from the same general perspective. We practice Falun Gong, we like it, and we feel that most people who take the time to understand it for what it is would too. We almost always put in positive things about Falun Gong, and are critical of the negative things. Why would I put in content that I don't believe? There is nothing wrong with our perspective. There's nothing wrong with having a non-neutral view of Falun Gong while being an editor, and that goes for both sides. The importance of neutrality in being a wikipedia editor is about being able to write neutrally; it's not about having a neutral perspective. I think it's pretty rare to find someone seriously involved in editing a page of a subject that doesn't mean anything to them. I try my best to only remove content when there is a valid reason, rather than simply because I don't like it. And when I put in content, I try to make sure it's relevant, written from a neutral perspective, and with sources that meet wiki standards. This is what I strive for, but I'm not perfect, so I do make mistakes sometimes. Don't we all? Like you mentioned, I've noticed your effort to write neutrally, and I think that's great. But I don't consider you a "neutral" editor. Perhaps in the spectrum of neutrality, you are closer to the middle than some of the others. But that's also just my perspective. Most of the editors who aren't practitioners, have their own perspectives, which are much more diverse than those of practitioners. And they act based on their perspectives, just like us. There are some editors I am more at odds with than others, and there are some whom I have had very little conflict with. There are also conflicts and differences of opinions amongst practitioners, despite coming from the same general perspective. A few of us actually often communicate over email and we disagree a lot over various things. So it's not black and white, it's just that our perspective is clearer and shared amonst us. Does this address your points? Mcconn 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Colipon+(T) 03:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Reply?

I see you have no intention to reply to my comments. I understand perfectly. Thank you for reading it. Colipon+(T) 19:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Mcconn 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from Talk:Li Hongzhi

Do you truly think the statement "He claimed supernatural abilities and allegedly healed the sick, along with stories of other miraculous deeds that circulated the country." is faulty or incorrect? Do you really want me to find the other sources? Which kind of sources do you want me to find? Do studies count? Do testimonials count? Do western news reports count? If so, give me a few days, and tell me where you want this list to be put. Do you want it posted here so everyone can see the truth talk for itself? Or do you want it on your user page in a more discreet fashion so you have a better chance defending it?

Right now I am leaning towards to not even try, although I have a few studies on hand. Pro-FLG editors either ignore or dismiss everything they feel is critical towards Falun Gong.

At the same time, let me remind you that no one from the pro-FLG camp has responded to my comments about health benefits, no one has responded about the study, no one has responded about the biased sourcing in the Epoch Times. ASDFG has also failed to address his own statements without trying to change the subject. You have to understand how frustrating this is for me. Colipon+(T) 05:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm waiting for a reply on that study. Don't be so enthusiastic into thinking you'll be let off the hook. Colipon+(T) 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Let off the hook"? Colipon, your hostility towards me and other practitioners, and your support for things like "Space Aliens", is making me seriously doubt your proclaimed "npov" stance. What do you want me to say about the report? Mcconn 02:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your request for a quick resolution

Sorry for taking so long to respond to your message. I hope you don't feel I meant any disrespect by my absence. I guess I owe you people an explanation and apology, but it would probably be better if I did that in a more public location.

If you are still interested in my help reaching a quick resolution on whether to use the term "persecution" or "supression" to describe the Chinese government's actions against Falun Gong. If you have not reached a resolution on this yet, I would be willing to try to offer a compromise. If you have reached a resolution, I would rather not stir the waters.

Again, sorry it has taken so long to respond.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 19:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asdfg12345 you have already removed sourced material. I hope you understand that your unilateral edits show no respect for other editors and Wiki policies. This page has been rewritten in the last two days by Falun Gong practitioner editors; it is troubling that these edits convey obvious pro-Falun Gong POV. What is more troubling is that the Tiananmen Square self-immolation section has been moved to a different page. To prevent future revert wars we must work together, that means when you (pro-FG-editors) want to remove existing material you must talk to editors from the other side. To show my desire for co-operation, I am not going to do any reverts and I hope you can show your good faith by restoring the Tiananmen Square Self-immolation section. --Samuel Luo 20:41, 10 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]

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]

Falun Gong arbcom case closed

The arbcom case closed a few days ago, which means that you can be our mediator again, right? We really need your help at this time. There are a couple of users who refuse to rationally discuss any edits on the talk pages and revert any edit I or any other practitioner makes. My "teamates" and I are all trying to avoid a revert war, and as a result no progess is being made. (I'm not speaking on anyone's behalf. This is just from me.) So how about it? Mcconn 05:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to help, but the Mediation Committee is currently discussing whether or not it is possible to continue mediation. See Martinp23's message here. You are invited to leave feedback on the matter there, here on my talk page, or both. Thanks for your patience, Armed Blowfish (mail) 05:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied here for Armedblowfish - please reply on his talk page, if you need to. Martinp23 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Times Nostalgia

Hi, I'm the person who originally created the Epoch Times page. I haven't looked at it in years and I was delighted to see so much work on it. Being a prideful and immature college student (still), I decided to check the history to see how my writings were preserved or rejected over time. Most of what I said was kept and elaborated upon, but I noticed that one of my sentences, after making it through more than a year of edits, was suddenly deleted, never to be seen again. And you sir, were the deleter, on Feburary 26 2007! Here is the paragraph you deleted:

'The Epoch Times has also reported severe unrest in China as a direct result of the publication of the "Commentaries", but no major news outlet has verified the paper's claims concerning the effects of the "Commentaries". The Epoch Times has been accused by some of wanting to overthrow the Chinese government without any guiding political philosophy. Critics nonetheless say the commentaries have had no discernible effect on Chinese politics, and that no CPC official in either the central or regional governments is known to have resigned on account of the "Commentaries".^{[citation needed]}

At the time you said you deleted it because there were no citations. And you know, you're right. Here's my original contribution, way back from June 6 2005:

While most of the articles in the Epoch Times are corraborated by the mainstream media, no major news outlets have verified any of the weekly Epoch Times articles concerning the "Commentaries".

Its possible that the (citation needed) tag was not referring to the first sentence. But presuming that it did include my sentence, and you agreed with it, I'm curious to know what you think I should have written instead back when I first wrote this in June 6, 2005. I was a sophomore in college who had stumbled upon the Epoch Times being distributed on my campus, and was alarmed that it mixed news with this Commentary business, which to me seemed more than a little bit fishy. And when I saw there wasn't a page, I decided, hey, I've looked at the paper, I've studied some Chinese history, I can make a page about this. And one of the things that had struck me about the paper was that it was claiming unrest when I had not read about it anywhere.

I paid attention to the news, and I was pretty sure that there hadn't been anything reported about civil unrest caused by the commentaries. But of course I know that I was not allowed to be a primary source.

You seem like an knowledgeable wiki person (though perhaps inactive now?). I'm curious to know what you think I should have done instead.RampagingCarrot (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2009 (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) 01:10, 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]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]