User talk:Cowman109

; Archives
	November 2005 – April 2006; May 2006 – June 2006; July 2006 – August 2006; September 2006 – November 2006; December 2006; January 2007 – February 2007; March 2007 - November 2007; December 2007 - December 2009; January 2010 - September 2010; October 2010 - October 2011; November 2011 - April 2012; May 2012 - April 2013; April 2013 - April 2014;

Hello, I am Cowman. Welcome to the void that is my user page. Please add comments to the bottom of the page and sign comments with ~~~~, or click here, or more preferably e-mail me as I am only sporadically active. Thanks! Cowman109 ^Talk

Articles for Protection, Paper Rad

I think we're okay on this for now. I wasn't sure if the people I was fighting were vandals or just mis-informed, but I think it's the latter. At this point it would be a pre-emptive protection, and it's probably best to wait for it to actually be vandalized to go to the trouble to protect it. I'll just concede the edit war, so don't worry about that. Thanks for looking into it. Paul Slocum 04:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: CATMAN COHEN Mediation Case (see attached item)

Dear Cowman 109:

Please note that the removal of CATMAN COHEN listing was effected recently upon the assumption that Wikipedia unilaterally bypassed mediation, instead summarily placing labels of censure upon the CATMAN COHEN listing, including NPOV, AUTOBIOGRAPHY, ADVERTISEMENT, etc. As a result, it was determined that immediate removal of the listing was necessary to avoid having Establishment friends of The Catman Project (including police, soldiers, nurses, firemen, paramedics, teachers, etc) stumble upon the various pejorative labels of censure.

However, if WIkipedia is still willing to mediate the issue privately (i.e. NOT in full view of the public), then please apprise as such because, naturally, in the best circumstances, CATMAN COHEN would remain listed at WIKIPEDIA, subject to the edits that would satisfy mutually both the encyclopedia's criteria for listing and the Artist's criteria for maintaining creative integrity.

Again, please note that the CATMAN COHEN recording artist is somewhat unique insofar as NOT providing an artist photo (except of the artist in silhouette) and NOT providing birthdate or birthplace. The CATMAN COHEN biography has been designed to be somewhat metaphorical; yet it seems that these diversions from standard encyclopedia standards are likely to increase interest in the Wikipedia listing rather than diminish it.

Once again, please apprise as to your final decision on the matter.

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Vicky Asher, PR

keevaymusic@comcast.net 24.126.193.239 10:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't quite understand what that is about. I was completely uninvolved in that issue and simply closed the Mediation Cabal case as the article had been deleted. You could contact those who deleted the page, though, here. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Goodsall

Regarding this diff: Are you telling me that John Goodsall's real name, or nickname, actually is "Ian Hart-Stein", despite the citations I've given from allmusic.com? There's been a long history of vandalism to John Goodsall and Brand X -- please read the history of these articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elkman (talk • contribs) .

Oh, I didn't realize they changed the contents of the opening paragraph - I thought it was simply adding a disclaimer that asserted your points that the page was being vandalized. Sorry about that :). Still WP:AGF goes a long way (reading the edits at least helps). :D Cowman109^Talk 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. In other words, his name really is "Ian Hart-Stein", and that's the accepted wording that the article is going to take. Thanks for letting me know this. I knew I shouldn't have "worked" on this article. --Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? Actually I was agreeing with your point, and there is no reliable citation that says his name is Ian Hart-Stein, so I'm about to remove it for you (a google search brings up 5 hits, which don't say much as one contradicts itself). Cowman109^Talk 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of note sent to JPS re: Catman Cohen listing deletion

JPS:

I was unaware of WP MUSIC criteria until now, however, it seems that Catman Cohen meets the WP MUSIC criterion, as stated:

"Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network"

Catman Cohen has been played regularly upon CBC RADIO in Canada (per Mary-Anne Korosi, Vancouver CBC radio producer, head of New Music Canada), and CBC RADIO is the national broadcast station for the country. Furthermore, as far as I know (although I am an American citizen), WEBRADIO CANADA happens to be owned by CBC RADIO and its subscriber growth far exceeds most traditional commercial FM stations outlets in Canada..

Incidentally, you note the imperative for polite manners at the front of your User page, so maybe you should learn a few yourself. The only reason I approached you about this matter is, first, upon request of Catman Cohen, and second, upon the suggestion of COWMAN 109, who apparently was the final arbiter of the Catman Cohen mediation request. As pointed out to COWMAN 109, that mediation request was abrogated summarily by myself when Wiki editors began slapping pejorative censure labels upon the Catman Cohen listing in plain view of the public, and that could not be allowed because of the types of groups (military, police, firemen, nurses, etc) associated with the Project. So, at COWMAN 109's polite suggestion, he stated that the three editors directly involved in the final category deletion should be contacted. Since one editor is on wiki-break, that meant an approach to you and the other member of the editorial trio. So for you to dismiss condescendingly this most recent approach as "spam" is simply RUDE.
Practise what you preach----- and I am providing a copy of this correspondence to COWMAN 109..

Vicky Asher, PR

24.126.193.239 22:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

RINSE

Please apply the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion properly. We have no speedy deletion criteria for "dictionary definitions". Nor is an article that contains 5 paragraphs an article that contains "no content". Uncle G 00:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously speedy deleted content. I was simply deleting as Kelly Martin had already done so, and the editor did not seem to understand the reasoning for it even after we tried to explain it to them (they have since been indefinite blocked for being a vandalism only account and trolling). You might want to read the content of the article - it was nothing but original research. It is deletable by criterion G4 and A1 at least, and as Kelly Martin put it, it is non notable cruft and slang definitions. Though I will specify that in the future, thank you. Cowman109^Talk 01:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you'd still like to contest the deletion of the page, please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review and file a request there. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a seven day break

I'll going home for the next seven days, please don't reach any conclusions about the Indian martial arts till then. Freedom skies 11:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you are right re: Adam Carr mediation case.

Thanks for your help. Yes I think very highly of his work so I will follow your suggestion. Case closed. Caltrop 22:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal mediation

Thanks for effectively stopping the "mediation" (really an underhanded way to get me blocked). The user is trying to malign me. He has already accused me of being a fascist.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, TerryJho has professed his hatred of Hindus in our debates and violated WP:BLP against scholar Daniel Pipes. Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not quite sure of what the specifics of the situation are, but either way, the situation really calls for administrator involvement if it sounds so heated. Cowman109^Talk 16:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tag reference!

I like the consolidated tag reference on your page! It really helps new editors who are frustrated with the massive Wikipedia help documents. --Vince 08:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean the warning templates? I just copied the one at Template:TestTemplates and made them into a smaller version, available at Template:miniTestTemplates if you want to use it yourself :). Cowman109^Talk 16:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I thought you might be interested in contributing here, [1]. Cheers, --Palffy 17:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to your inquiry on my talk page. --Palffy 17:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kwame Nkurumah and Palffy

Hello. Do you remember me? I had some issues with User:Palffy, you told us to stay away.

I did, he is not doing. So, are you going to do anything?--Kwame Nkrumah 17:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Kwame for 40 hours in response to two violations of 3RR. I realize that's a little more than the typical 24 hour block, but he was already aware of 3RR at the time of the block and had 6 reverts on one of the articles and 5 on the other. Regards, alphaChimp ^laudare 17:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikedk9109

If he returns, he needs to be able to edit it; and he seems to still be active. Please unprotect his talkpage. ForestH2 t/c 02:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He can e-mail me if he would like his page unprotected (and he was able to use an IP to evade the week-long block to edit his userpage anyway, so if he wants it unprotected he'll be able to request through the IP as well). Cowman109^Talk 02:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His IP's blocked for 24 hours though but O.K. ForestH2 t/c 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made note of the protection on WP:ANI, so other administrators can look at it should they feel his page should be unprotected as well. Cowman109^Talk 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. ForestH2 t/c 02:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 21st


Volume 2, Issue 34	21 August 2006	About the Signpost

Politician's staff criticizes Wikipedia after being caught editing it	Board of Trustees elections continue with call for candidates
Report from the Swedish Wikipedia	News and notes
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Picture Deletion

I have a few questions to ask about the deletion of 4 images on the John Vogel page.

3 of the 4 images have been on that page for about a month. Are they violations now but not a few weeks ago?
Here's what you said: Removing innappropriate usage of fair use images - please keep those to the articles that specifically discusses them) How does an article on John Vogel not specifically discuss John Vogel? Jonhhy Cage and Reiko both have an entire sections discussing them in the article. I mention Mortal Kombat Armageddon, but if that's not enough I'll add more on it.
Copyright violation? If that's the case, then why are the same pictures allowed on other pages on Wikipedia (Again there are entire sections discussing Cage/Reiko-Please read the John Vogel article). The only image that does not appear anywhere else is the john vogel image. I thought I sourced it correctly but apparently I didn't. What do I need to do differently to make that picture legitimate?

Due to the fact that you have not responded to the above comments, I can only assume that you no longer take issue with the pictures. I will add the pictures back until further notice. If you feel that they should be removed, please respond to the above statements as well.

This conversation has continued on User:Sean Black's talk page. Please refer to that before you do anything hasty.

Bonza Bottler Day

Hi. I'm confused and would appreciate your attention to this matter. The article, "Bonza Bottler Day," was deleted from Wikipedia on the basis that it was insufficiently notable. That action and its rationale would make sense and I'd have no problem at all with either, except that Wikipedia includes certain Hallmark holidays and Humorous observances that are no more notable, which have not been Afd'd. This issue was raised on Bonza Bottler Days' Afd Talk Page and I was under the impression that all similar "holidays" would be marked for deletion. But they haven't been. So why then, didn't the Mediation Cabal apply the same standard to all similar holiday articles? I would appreciate it your looking into the matter, and Wikipedia would benefit from the establishment and enforcement of consistent standards. Thank you!69.117.159.235 15:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm not familiar with the article. I believe I simple closed the case involving that one as the article was already deleted. If you'd like to contest the deletion, you can go to deletion review to get the article looked at once more. Cowman109^Talk 15:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Vogel: WP:FUC

Okay I read WP: FUC and I still don't see why the three other pictures have to be deleted. It looks as though I follow all guidelines. I did not intend the pictures as decoration; someone may not know who Reiko/Cage are, thus the pictures illustrates their appearances. Yes the pictures appear elsewhere on Wikipedia, so the issue seems to be that the pictures must solely describe the subject matter in the article title, not section titles. I would like to draw your attention to this page: George H. W. Bush. The map in this article does not describe the article subject matter, but does illustrate the section entitled "1988 presidential election," just as the Johnny Cage picture does not describe the title subject matter (John Vogel) but does describe a section within the article. TigerManXL 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond :) TigerManXL 19:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I completely missed this header. The important thing about the map you mentioned is that it is in the public domain, which means it can be used for any purpose without limitation.The images you want to use in John Vogel are copyrighted, however, and as such they have more restrictions to them. Basically, their existence in the article is not necessary to its understanding. If they were, however, then they would be more than decorative and would be explanatory. A picture of Reiko, for example, is not really necessary unless you want to talk about what clothes he wears that can be best shown by an images or types of combat moves, for example, unless it was the subject of the article. Basically, you have to be much more areful with copyrighted images and only use them when they are necessary. Even the John Vogel picture isn't really necessary as he's still a living person, and as such it shouldn't be too difficult to obtain a GFDL licensed picture of him. Cowman109^Talk 14:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro B Cornhusk

The issue is being dealt with on unblock-en-l, to which I have sent a lengthy e-mail. The issue is not what Jethro would make it out to be. Please do not unblock until such time as a consensus is achieved on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for telling me :) Cowman109^Talk 18:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiarthurhu

Thank you for blocking Wiarthurhu, you have lifted a HUGE weight from my shoulders. He would continually treat me like crap because I am 14, and claim I am a "Profilic teen vandal" because I would remove his half cocked images of slot cars from the NASCAR page. Thank you, Wiarthurhu certainly deserved that. Karrmann 19:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Would you be interested in participating with regards to this issue since you've already given input into this earlier? [2] Thanks, --Palffy 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSP

Thanks for your recent edits to cases on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets: Wikipedia needs more admins around there! You might wish to read this. Thanks, Iolakana•T 17:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encarta

Does wikipedia consider Encarta a reliable source? I mean, can I use Encarta to cite references and soures, like I've done here: Link El Greco 18:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything inherently wrong with it myself. If it is questioned, other sources could probably be provided anyway. Cowman109^Talk 22:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wiarthurhu, redux

Hi Cowman, thought I'd alert you to a new development in the case of this banned user who is now asking for a lifting of the ban under certain conditions. As you took place in the original discussion leading to the ban I thought I should contact you directly about this new discussion. Thanks, Gwernol 21:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw III

I have a feeling that until the film comes out it will be still be a target. If the vandalism persists could you please reprotect it?--CyberGhostface 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I meant. The vandals are coming back.--CyberGhostface 02:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is a common occurence, but this seems to be mainly a content dispute, where the solution would be providing sources stating whether certain characters are appearing in the film or not, as there are clearly some who think otherwise. If the task of reverting such verifiable errors becomes too difficult, then the page can be reprotected, otherwise it seems unnecessary at this time. Cowman109^Talk 03:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

falun gong pages

Hi, I notice that you have protected the Persecution of Falun Gong page. Currently there are heated revert wars on these two pages: Li Hongzhi and Teachings of Falun Gong. Protecting these two pages will prevent edit warring going further, thanks.

PS: you might want to protect this page Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong as well. All these pages related to the Falun Gong have Request for Mediation tag on them. --Kent8888 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cowman. What you protected leaves a messy status [3]. Fortunately, protection does not endorse its validity. I strongly request you to protect it to a status before we request mediation (13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC))[4]. That would be more fair. If you did not notice its being requested for mediation, I can understand you. But please help improve wiki page quality in a more constructive way. Thanks, Fnhddzs 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, please protect them to the status upon requesting mediation[5] for all the pages you protected. Thanks.

Currently you have also removed all mediation requests on all pages including the critism page[6]. Please tell us why?!! Fnhddzs 22:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The requests for mediation were moved to the talk pages of the articles (where they are supposed to be anyway). Please take the discussion of the pages to the talk page as well, as edit warring on the articles themselves serves no purpose. Cowman109^Talk 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. Fnhddzs 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the protected articles, especially the biographical article on Li Hongzhi, is that they contain highly libelous text. Unless we get a mediator very soon - which might not happen - this is clearly an issue that must be resolved now. I don't know how much you've been following the edit wars in question, but currently all the protected pages are locked into an anti-FLG point of view, and even though the content is not "officially endorsed", a state of stagnation only consolidates the bias. We can do nothing to remove derogatory material that can be used to legitimize genocidal policies in China. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exact argument that a Falun Gong lawyer in Madrid used to shut down all Falun Gong panel discussions at last year's ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) conference. He threatened the panelists and organizers of the conference with jail time for aiding and abetting the evil, wicked Chines government's alleged "genocide" if they said anyting critical of the Falun Gong. Olaf, there's a different standard for Wikipedia content. --Tomananda 04:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a critic of the Falun Gong which is characterized by American cult experts as a cult. Some of my edits which Falun Gong practitioners call “libelous text” have provoked revert wars although they are nothing but direct quotes from Master Li the founder and leader of the group. Falun Gong practitioners are preventing anyone from quoting the group’s core teachings and the claims Li has made about his divine status on wikipedia. There is nothing critics have contributed on these two pages that are not referenced properly. Your protection is preventing me and others from contributing to these pages but I can understand your concern. I hope a mediator can arrive shortly, thanks anyway. --Samuel Luo 04:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are combining the quotes, glueing them together with your own snide, distorting comments (check out the text outside of quotation marks) and blatantly removing them from their context. First you provide a distorting and libelous interpretation, then you quote a few expedient words to support it. You're acting as if you were writing a cheap gossip magazine. Any neutral observer who is familiar with Falun Gong will immediately see what you're doing. ---Olaf Stephanos 09:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Stephanos how would you interpret this statement of your master: "No being knows who I am. Yet without me, the cosmos wouldn't exist.”[7]? I call it a grandiose statement, is this a “snide and distorting comments”? --Samuel Luo 16:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Finnish language there is an idiom "twist from iron wire", which roughly translates as "explain something so scrupulously and unambiguously that even the most simple-minded person can understand it". I'd rather not do that, because you're only playing dumb, Samuel, you are not so simple-minded that you couldn't understand what I mean. The current article is nothing but just another propagandistic exposé. It is a compilation of quotes that do not represent the meaning of these words in relation to the whole. From an entire corpus of teachings consisting thousands of pages, how come you have selected these and named them as "the core teachings"? Could there be a reason? Of course. All throughout the article there is a clear intention, a scornful tone: Just look how stupid they are. I'm not going to talk this through here, but you can be sure that any mediator we get will instantly see what you're after. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Stephanos This is a recurring argument we have had since we started talking on Wikipedia. Every time I ask you to respond to a specific point you avoid it by lecturing/insulting me. I see no point continue in this discussion and let’s wait for the mediator.--Samuel Luo 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "cult" term was coined by the CCP to justify their killing thousands of innocent people. Falun Gong, by 1998 was the most popular system of Qi Gong in Chinese History. You could look at United States Congress Resolution 188 , Unanimously passed (420-0) by the U.S Congress, The pages of Amnesty International, or the UN reports on the Persectution of Falun Gong. 202.83.34.15 06:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf: Li has repeatedly made grandiose statements, including the one Samuel has quoted. Not only has Li said that the universe would not exist without him, he has also said he is preventing the universe from exploding by "keeping up with it." Some commentators have called Li's claims "cartoonish." It is not "libelous" to use adjectives such as "grandiose" or "cartoonish" to describe Li's self-promoting statements. Words like "grandiose" are not even "snide" in my opinion...they are fair characterizations of Li's repeated claims. If Li is not "grandiose" then who is?

Having made these points, I agree that ultimately some of these adjectives will need to be changed in the article to render the overall expositon more neutral. But I also feel strongly that these quotes from Li are extremely relevant to an understanding of his perceived power by practitioners. Really, this is all just a question of how we can best present Li's claims in the article. Let me be clear on this one point: is there any practitioner who would be willing to say that they doubt Li's claims that:

Without him the universe wouldn't exist
He is preventing the explosion of the universe by keeping up with it

If all practitioners believe these claims, then these statements are most certainly relevant to an understanding of Li's impact on the future of mankind.

One of Wikipedia's standards for relevance is called "notability" and what could be more "notable" than the fact that someone living on the north shore of Long Island is preventing the explosition of the universe? Isn't the explosion of the universe something that effects all of us human beings, and all other beings in the cosmos as well? In fact, doesn't Li claim to teach a "great law" which is rectifying all beings in the cosmos, thereby enabling them to return to their original "higher" selves (which of course necessitates the elimination of all homosexuals)? Clearly, these are key concepts in Falun Gong teachings and no amount of apologetics can justify their suppression in this article.--Tomananda 19:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The "evil and wicked" CCP did not coin the word "cult"...it's a term that's been around for a long time. It describes a group leader who manipulates his followers into doing what he wants by claiming special knowledge and extraordinary powers. Eventually the followers internalize the Master's logic and are impervious to outside arguments based on empirical evidence and logical thinking. Doesn't this sound like what Li has done? --Tomananda 19:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud you for protecting the page. The old version was a total Falun Gong PR. The CCP is not the only one calling the FG a cult, virtually all American cult experts interviewed have attested that this group is a cult. America’s leading cult expert Dr. Margaret Singer talked about the Falun Gong in her famous Cults in Our Midst (revised edition). She said: “I have no doubt that Falun Gong has many of the characteristics of a true cult, including utter obedience to a charismatic leader, coercive thought control, financial exploitation of its followers, a doomsday prediction that promises salvation only through total obedience and subservience to the cult leader, zero tolerance for dissent, and a very strict organization from which it is difficult to escape.” Wikipedia pages must present the true teachings of the Falun Gong cult to the public. --Mr.He 20:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now TV

Please protect the Now-TV page again. Various anonymous users are starting to vandalize it with "anticipated channels" without any references to sources of such information. I have made the deletions, but I am sure that the page will be vandalized again. I don't have administrator rights, so, I cannot protect the page. Thanks in advance for your help. --theorb 02:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection on Teachings of Falun Gong Page

Dear Sir, I would like to point out that the currently protected version of the page is a severly vandalized one. I would like to request you to restore it to the earlier stable version ( the version before the revert war started) [Stable from 8th June to 3rg August] ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teachings_of_Falun_Gong&oldid=60136779 ) Kindly look into the matter. Thanking You.

Dilip

202.83.34.15 04:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip, the solution to this problem is for us to work together. I suggest we take advantage of this time when the page is frozen and seriously work to resolve our differences in the disussion page. --Tomananda 04:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip, Wikipedia is not a place for you guys to promote the Falun Gong. These pages must present core teachings of the group.--Samuel Luo 04:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

I request you to please compare what the editors say on the page directly with what the teachings say - which can be seen here on http://www.falundafa.org . These two people who call themselves "critics" are pouring in their own ideas into the page with the sole intent of slander.

Moderation had been requested for all the related pages and within a few days the above two editors started pouring in their personal POVs into the article. The articles, including the article Li Hongzhi now seems like a personal attack.

I request that the pages may please be restored to the version when the moderation was requested.

202.83.34.15 05:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC) (Dilip)[reply]

I cannot easily find a pre-mediation request version of the article. If anything, if everyone could agree to a complete rewrite of the articles in question, more progress might be made in my opinion. At this point I'd rather not get much further involved as I'm solely trying to promote talk page discussion, though if there is some sort of consensus to a version to revert to so things can be discussed, that could be brought up on WP:RFP for requests for significant edits to a protected page. This disagreement over whether the page should be reverted or not is just the reason the page was protected in the first place, however. The page will be unprotected in the near future, but then blocks would start going out to people who violate the three revert rule instead. Cowman109^Talk 16:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowman109^Talk I feel that I need to make this point clear, there is no consensus on any of the Falun Gong pages. I am sure you can see why. There wasn’t any edit conflicts on these two pages you just protected before the “request for mediation” tags were added. These tags were added when we requested mediation for the main Falun Gong page which has been locked for a long time. Somehow Falun gong practitioners see the tags as a justification to thwart anyone from editing these two pages which is simply absurd. These practitioners owned these two pages and tuned them into promotional pieces. All the critics want is to expose the concealed core teachings of the group to the public. I am sure this is in accord with Wikipedia policy. --Samuel Luo 16:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to there being some kind of consensus over which page to have up, I think that if you look at the edit history and discussion you will see that there are already two factions that really can't agree on anything without mediation. I urge you to compare the two pages in question, the locked page and this one [8], and reconsider which to leave up for the time being. I'd also be interested to hear what you say regarding the comments accompanying the edits and the discussion on the talk page. I don't believe that it should be edited until the mediator arrives.

Also, regarding the Li Hongzhi page, I again urge you to compare the two versions involved in the edit war; the locked one and this one [9]. The one that is up there is much worse in my opinion. Please look at some of my comments on the talk page. This whole thing is rather frustrating for me. It seems that everytime a Falun Gong page is locked it gets locked on this kind of pov version. So if you can, please compare these pages a bit more and lock the page you consider most appropriate (I agree that neither is perfect). Thanks. --Mcconn 16:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see m:The wrong version and the protection policy. I can't and won't change to a preferred version, as it is not for me to decide which is best. If there is indeed so much conflict that there will eternally be an edit war, then perhaps the page should just be rewritten. The second I unprotect the page, however, this edit warring will continue. If the page is unprotected, it should be made clear that future edit warring will result in blocking. For this page I might also suggest arbitration, since it seems that the conflict goes much further than simple content disputes, as mediation would handle. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 16:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it always gets stuck on versions like this because somehow these people (the people on the other side of the dispute) have more time to watch the page and change my reverts or edits (or those of the others on my side of the dispute) very quickly, and thus have their version up for longer periods of time. It seems a flaw in the system that this is how it works. As for arbarition, we haven't even had a mediator yet, so I think we'd be skipping a step by going there right away. We had a user on the Falun Gong page which acted as something in between a mediator and arbarition, and this worked well for a little while. There are certain decisions that we simply can't reach consensus on ourselves (we're like toothpaste and orange juice...), but I will hit the discussion forum on this and try anyway. This is the first time this kind of focus has been given to the Li Hongzhi page and is the first instance of a major revert war, so there really hasn't been much discussed at all on this yet. Also, please insert pov tags on both pages. Mcconn 17:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian martial arts

Are you still involved with the dispute at Indian martial arts? Freedom skies has returned and I'm sure we would appreciate any comments you might have.
JFD 13:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article indefinitely unblocked for editing now or are there other issues we need to work out on the Talk Page before that happens?

JFD 04:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously we shouldn't be edit warring, but I figured that things had cooled down on the article to unprotect the article and for talk to also continue when necessary - talk is always preferred, of course. If edits are controversial, they should always be discussed, otherwise the article unprotected. Cowman109^Talk 04:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice

Thank you for the sage advice regarding King George's Fields. I appreciate the time you took. Fiddle Faddle 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoconservativism

So, you've seen what he's posting now. I think its pretty clear that he's not interested in mediation on this issue. What do I do now? -Psychohistorian 00:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]