User talk:Zujine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Editing tip

Hi, Zujine. Just saw your recent edit of the Tibet article in 7 installments. Looks like one of mine. I do something and then see how it looks after saving before tweaking and tweaking again... I've recently discovered the "Show preview" button next to the "Save page" button. It's made the whole process more streamlined for me. Hope this helps. Moonsell (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. Unfortunately, the "Show Preview" doesn't work on footnotes, though. Moonsell (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated

Good catch on this one[1]. Who knows how long it would have been pointing to a race-car driver. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem; the article was informative. Zujine (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverse scientific method

(copied from my discussion page, Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

But it has many sources as evidenced here and here. Perhaps your problem is with the manner in which the page has been constructed. As a topic, this "reverse scientific method", whatever it is, seems to have been discussed by many published sources. Zujine (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems in relation to the "Reverse scientific method", but the article Reverse scientific method has been nominated for deletion. Please, discuss it there, and contest my claims, to possibly increase the chances of survival. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Zujine (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Saying hello to PCPP

This edit may interest you. I have made a remark on the talk page. I noticed that you said this isn't a subject you wish to get into, but it's an important subject, and if you know something about it, why not participate a bit? You can assess for yourself whether the reason I presented for naming that section that way is cogent or not. --Asdfg12345 04:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Zujine (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Human rights in Tibet

Hi, Zujine. Good luck with the new article. I have created a "References" section. Why not put details of Elliot Sperling's book there and remove it from the text, until you have a need to make a footnote to it. Best wishes, Moonsell (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. I suggest listing your references there to stop the page being quickly deleted. Pages without sources are vulnerable. That may have happened to pages with this title in the past. You could copy the list (excluding the Nepalese one) from the talk page to the References section of the main article. Moonsell (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC) P.P.S. Don't worry. I've done it. If you have the extra details of Elliot Sperling's book and would like to add them too, though... Moonsell (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Zujine. You have new messages at Bertport's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. I think you've been doing a great job with this article. I fixed one redirect here [2]; there might be others as well. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Funnily enough, the Chinese state's determination to wipe out Tibetan Buddhism seems to have strong parallels with another religious persecution you know about. —Zujine|talk 23:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Passing on the courage

A veteran of the 'contested space' of FLG on Wikipedia left me this note (partial): "I just noticed that you have started editing Falun Gong articles... Je te souhaite bon courage!"

The same goes to you. If you've written a thesis exploring the war of representations, that probably stands you in good stead. That war is playing itself out here, if you hadn't noticed:[3]. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Je te remercie pour ton encouragement. I have to admit that I felt a certain repulsion towards the topic until recently. From a disengaged bird's-eye view, I was following the talk page disputes for a period of time. It looked like an endless bad trip. But as long as we can keep their mutual resentment under control, I think we have a chance to actually do something about the pro/anti-FLG-pendulum that has been swinging there for quite some time. —Zujine|talk 02:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Some agreement. I made a lot of big changes to the main page just now. There was a lot of detail on minor points, and I got out my clippers. In my experience neither the pro nor anti guys are really that bad. They have their views on the issue, and seem to have developed a kind of love-to-hate rapport. Working with everyone involved is going to be the best and most successful strategy for getting professional-level articles. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on PCPP

You may be interested in this based on your recent experiences with this individual. I would say everyone who has interacted with him should leave their impressions, positive or negative, and reflections as to the individual's contribution or detraction from the project. The worst thing would be new, enthusiastic editors with knowledge of a subject area being put off by someone like PCPP. --Asdfg12345 16:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What did this say [4]? Lay off the canvassing, ok?--PCPP (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm informing a new editor to the topic of the RfC against you. I think that's perfectly legitimate. He has to find out somehow, right? If you have not been doing anything wrong, what would you be worried about? Right? --Asdfg12345 08:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

[5] He already knows that there's a RFC against me. Selectively informing users on a RFC YOU started can be seen as a form of canvassing.--PCPP (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I told everyone involved. As I say, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about. Of course, you know your hands aren't clean though. Far from it. --Asdfg12345 13:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Aww, the pot calling the kettle black--PCPP (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if these battles could take place elsewhere. I am aware of the RfC. I am observing PCPP's conduct and will formulate my own opinion. —Zujine|talk 05:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. --Asdfg12345 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I apologise that I had to check your contributions history, because I got the impression you were another one of those FLG single-purpose accounts. I would like to cooperate with you, and would appreciate you toned down that rather combative style you appear to have adopted against me. I'm not a PRC stooge nor a member of the 50 Cent Party. ;-) Hell, I'm not even sure I want to be editing that article, as I already retired from editing FLG nonsense. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't know my questions came across as combative; for that I apologise. I try not to engage in politics when I edit these subjects, so I just wanted to ask a few things in a straightforward way, without any drama. I will look at your response and respond again in a moment. —Zujine|talk 03:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am genuinely sorry to say this, but in case it wasn't clear to you, Zujine, Ohconfucius is, and has for some time been, dedicated to editing from an anti-Falun Gong standpoint. It wasn't always so, but he is now set in his ways. Some bad experiences turned him to the dark side... Though, hopefully your presence will bring the conversation back to actual evidence, sources, research, and academic rigour, rather than the opinion driven battling that has persisted for so long (and part of which I am to blame for). --Asdfg12345 06:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Tibet tortur3.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tibet tortur3.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Let me get back to you. —Zujine|talk 15:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology membership

You are listed in the Category:Wikipedians interested in sociology, probably due to the use of "This user is interested in sociology" userbox, but you have not added yourself to our official member list for WikiProject Sociology. This prevents you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. Forgive my neglect Mr Bot man. —Zujine|talk 02:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The Master of Shadows: or if you fail at an edit, try again and fail better

I'm not sure what's going on with this User:Woland1234. I'm annoyed and a bit peeved because of no contact, no feedback, from that "lurker", that "shadow master".

• That being said, with exasperation, I'll cast a humorous eye on these shenanigans as I tell you what I've uncovered. Let's call Woland1234 our beloved phantom Serial Editor or the "master of shadows".
• Anyhow, to summarize briefly:
  • You commented earlier on his talk page here on 24 December 2010. Meanwhile I mentioned it to another concerned editor over on their talk page here.
  • My opinion? Well, these aren't anything I'd characterize as either vicious editing or vandalism. The edits are not blatantly damaging or harmful edits. But potentially "harmful".
  • Why not harmful? Well, they might be. But this User will take out, remove by editing out, a Category (usually) or some loaded word that has "troubling" connotations, is one of those "loaded" words that is like a "smoking gun", at least to those of a more "reactionary" (fascist?) cast of mind).
  • And this is what's odd: down the road, our phantom serial editor will have a "change of heart" and
    • abracadabra, wham!! bam!!: put back in what was taken out(oh but wait: let's take it out again).Peculiar.
  • So not vicious terrorism against articles. But troubling nonetheless. Bottom line: The User won't interact with "fellow" wikipedians, and has never done an edit summary to save their life. Woland1234's talk page has other users offering warnings, too. But no response.
  • As I hinted at,it's like this User is acting-out of duress, perhaps from some kind of "post-modern", post-marxist, ( ____ fill in the blank) anxiety attack. And then is acting out this "anxiety", taking it to the "editing barricades", marching against, protesting against, certain "lines of flight" and "schools of thought" and the figures/persons associated with them.
  • But not too many edits. Maybe a couple dozen edits a month from what I found. Here's what my investigation turned up: Top 20 namespace edits for our "serial editor"(I'm not sure how accurate that tool is):

• 17 edits for Charles Baudelaire
• 13 edits for Noam Chomsky
• 12 edits for David Graeber
• 11 edits for
  • Simon Critchley
  • Fredric Jameson
• 9 edits for
  • Max Stirner
  • Paul Goodman (writer)|
• 8 edits for

Franz Kafka

• 7 edits for
  • Zapatista Army of National Liberation,
  • Félix Guattari,
  • Herbert Marcuse,
  • Bartleby, the Scrivener
  • Emma Goldman
• 6 edits for
  • Hegel,
  • R. D. Laing,
  • Marquis de Sade,
  • Henri Lefebvre

• 5 edits for
  • Empire (book),
  • Oscar Wilde
  • Georges Bataille

• • • Any suggestions on what should be done? Christian Roess (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I have a great suggestion... let the guy keep going, and allow you to continue these hilarious ramblings! But seriously, very funny. As for this fellow... the standard practice is some sort of dispute resolution procedure. Do you want to do it, or is it just too much a source of amusement? —Zujine|talk 05:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I've placed a little firecracker on his userpage. Let's see how that goes. —Zujine|talk 05:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A masked Zapatista playing a three string Mexican bass guitar after fighting the latest "editing war".

• • Oh that firecracker bit...whoaahh...is just too much! Love it.
    • Though, come to think of it...Oh but wait, maybe we should undo that, that could be troublesome?
    • Oh let's leave it in!...though, why fight fire with...mmm, maybe we shouldn't...
    • let's revert that...oh maybe let's not leave it in, definitely leave it in.

But on a serious note, (though if we kick (his? probably a guy) his ass to the curb, he'll still probably assume some kind of "sockpuppet" identity later, let's say something undetectable like User:4321Dnalow, and start shadowing Billy Graham or Richard Nixon and Charles Lindbergh) seriously, I'll see what I can do about some kind of dispute resolution in the coming days. I've just grown weary of seeing the shadowmaster popping up on my watchlist. I'll probably just try to revert some of those inane edits in the coming days and meanwhile see if (he) responds to firecrackers exploding on his User page. But go ahead and start the dispute resolution procedure if you are up to it. Meanwhile, maybe Wo--land a few punches first, and bring (him) out of hiding!! Last I heard, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation ain't taking too kindly these days to Fredric Jameson's latest tome (they're waiting for the Spanish translation). Christian Roess (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Update re: inappropriate edits from another User

• Here's an update. I have made another plea: here. I will follow through if this User's actions continue unabated. Christian Roess (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but don't forget to have fun... he seems to have been spooked off by all the clamoring, anyway. Hehe... —Zujine|talk 20:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No Woland is still at it. Check it out. Naughty, naughty! Christian Roess (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I must see how it has developed. —Zujine|talk 01:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Women's rights article

Can you have a look again and help improve the article. and exercise some calming influence. Ta--SasiSasi (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Weiquan movement

Given your work on Tibetan issues, you may be interested in supplementing the page on the Weiquan movement, specifically on the topic of lawyers defending ethnic minority rights. Homunculus (duihua) 15:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like you've done some good work there already. I'll have a dig about one of these days. —Zujine|talk 01:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've created a sub-section for you on defense of ethnic minorities that is now waiting to be fleshed out. I just jumped on it again a moment ago, after having been tied up elsewhere for the last two days. Homunculus (duihua) 02:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Women's History

WikiProject Women's History needs members' input on implementing auto-assessment. You'll find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History#Auto-assessment. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Members' input needed at WikiProject Women's History

Hello. I'm writing to you as your name is listed on the members page for WikiProject Women's History. In recent discussions at the project, most notably here, several members have indicated that the scope of the project may need to be more clearly defined and communicated. I have set up a workshop page for this, but it obviously needs as wide a participation as possible to achieve genuine consensus and to allow the project to move forward. You'll find the workshop here.

If you no longer consider yourself an active member of the project, it would help if you could indicate this on the members' page. This will allow us to better gauge how much people-power we actually have. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Women's History Project – Final call for comments on the Scope draft

Our workshop on revising and clarifying the scope of our project has produced a draft outlining our project's scope and criteria for article inclusion. Please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History/Scope workshop#Scope draft to discuss this document. There's a separate section beneath it for final comments, which will remain open through Tuesday, June 14th. As Cynwolfe says "with good participation, we should be able to revise our project page soon, clearing up the issues we've been dealing with and preparing us to go on to the fun stuff." Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Falun Gong project

Zujine, there's some discussion on the Falun Gong project[6], and among the suggestions was to condense some of the material on the main page. Seeing as you've previously volunteered to help with this, and in light of your good work on History of Falun Gong, I thought you might want to partake.Homunculus (duihua) 16:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look soon. Thank you.—Zujine|talk 04:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Voice of Tibet

Are you familiar with this? Seems it could use its own page (I encountered it while researching radio jamming in China. Homunculus (duihua) 05:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Started a basic page, will continue to expound upon it. Thank you for the suggestion. —Zujine|talk 05:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Tibet

Hi Zujine. Nice that you contributed to Japanese Zen. Regarding Tibet: do you "know" Davin, from the Dutch Wikipedia? He's doing a lot on Tibet. Are you French-speaking, or also Dutch? St. Niklaas is Flamish, I suppose? Vriendelijke groet, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice to meet you Joshua Jonathan. I haven't worked on the Dutch Wikipedia. Other than English, my primary language is French, but now I don't really edit in French either. I'm always happy to meet more people interested in Tibet or Zen like yourself. And yes, Sint-Niklaas is Flemish, but much of my time is spent in Brussels where I'm more at home linguistically. —Zujine|talk 00:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

My revert at Li Hongzhi

Sorry, I hit the wrong button which marked my edit as vandalism. The tagging as vandalism was an error. With that I see no consensus for your edits on the talk page, that is why I am reverting. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Thank you for the note. It is not necessary to establish consensus before improving the content of a page based on careful readings of the academic literature. I will undo your accidental revert, and address the concerns raised on the talk page.—Zujine|talk 23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The revert was not accidental, I've clarified that. You are free to discuss on the article talk page and reach consensus, however if you revert before conclusion of the discussion, it would constitute an edit warring. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see you have reverted already. That was wrong. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for weighing in on your dispute, but I felt I should describe the situation as I see it. Zujine's edits appear to be based on a careful reading of the literature and in according with policies on BLP. Another editor objected to two of those edits, protesting the fact that Zujine removed a couple quotes from David Ownby. As Zujine pointed out, one of those statements was a paraphrase that Zujine replaced with a more nuanced and specific explanation, and the other was actually misattributed, both to the secondary and primary source it purported to quote (in other words, it was rightly deleted). Zujine's other edits consisted of adding well sourced, notable information, replacing primary sources with secondary sources, and clearly stating the source of controversial claims about a living person. AgadaUrbanit, you reverted all of Zujine's edits on the basis of there being no prior consensus. Prior consensus is not needed to make good edits, or to add better sources, or correct contentious material about a living person. Nor is the fact that an editor raised two (fairly erroneous, minor) objections good reason to revert a whole series of well researched changes. Edit waring is never right, but you are at least equally in the wrong.Homunculus (duihua) 05:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, it is not my intention to edit war, and I apologise if I was hasty. However, your conduct was unusual. My edits resolved some serious problems with the page, including an over-reliance on primary sources, and multiple misattributed statements as well as factual misrepresentations. I am very confident that the direction of my edits is commensurate with the tone and weight used by the most reliable sources on Falungong and Li Hongzhi. I explained the rationale for my changes on the talk page. Another editor objected to just two of the changes I made, and you promptly reverted me entirely, restoring to the page a stack of primary sources and misattributed quotations and the like. You say you reverted because there was no consensus, but you did not even wait long enough for me to answer the other editor's concerns before reverting. Had you waited, you would have seen that their objections were misplaced. I only reverted back after I resolved the only objections that were made.

It's important that we focus on content and adherence to policy. Unanimous consensus of opinion is not always possible (particularly on articles that attract many partisan editors). Any and all objections to content can be addressed as long as the objections address the content, rather than opinions or ideology. No offense taken at your reversion, but let's try to move the article forward and bring it more in line with the academic consensus and Wikipedia policies (something I think is more important than absolute editor consensus).—Zujine|talk 14:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square Self-Immolation Incident

Hi SilkTork, You were involved on this page through various stages of its development, and I'm asking for your help again. It is, as you know, a featured article, and is under the purview of the Arbitration Committee. In the last several hours, an editor made significant changes to the page without discussion.[7] When I attempted to (in my view) restore balance and fix some problems, I was summarily (and quite rudely) reverted. I have asked the editor to slow down and discuss changes, but do not want to get into an edit war. I fear that this issue cannot be resolved, the page will need to be demoted from FA status, as it currently has numerous issues related to the misrepresentation of sources and alignment with NPOV policy. I have pointed out the content issues that are problematic on the talk page. Your help would be appreciated.—Zujine|talk 17:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have always been very reluctant to get involved with Falun Gong matters. I have only made myself available in this area because there are few admins who have got involved. Over the years I have spent considerable hours of my free time on Falun Gong, and I was pleased with some of the things I achieved, but did start to lose interest in continuing to help out when Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China was delisted as a Good Article due to POV pressure over the title. There were then other incidents which made it clear that because the Falun Gong topic is an enduring battlefield, whatever progress one feels one has made is likely to be later undermined. I have unwatched the Falun Gong articles I was watching, and have pretty much completely removed myself from the topic. I think you need to find another admin to look into this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Revert

No worries for the revert :)Festermunk (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've made a partial revert of your edits to the immolation incident page, in particular the lead paragraph mentioning Philip Pan. The summary of my edit explains more in-depthly the reasons for my edit, but in essence, the reason is a mistaken ascription of quotes in the Wikipedia article to Pan instead of the people who he interviews.Festermunk (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi again and thanks for the comments over which I've read and would like to comment on point-by-point. As you seem like a reasonable person, I've also taken the principle of keeping your version of the edit regarding the text in dispute between the two of us until we can come to a mutual consensus as to what the final version of the text shoud be.

1) You dispute my assertion that "Pan doesn't conclude that she doesn't practice Falung Gong, but rather the people who he is interviewing who do," and you do this on grounds that it's his "literal conclusion." Actually, I think there's a bit of confusion here as to how we understand the word "conclusion": in the literal sense, you are right in saying that its literal conclusion is that no-one ever saw Chunling practice Falung Gong as that is the quote on which the article ends. But if we use it in an attitudinal sense such as to mean one's conclusion expressing one's belief, and (in the context of this case) belief regarding the validity of an interpretation of events over another competing interpretation, there's no evidence to suggest that Pan's (in your words) "own conclusion" is that he thinks Chunling as a non-practitioner of Falun Gong. This lack of evidence is made even more lucid if one considers the exact wording of the literal conclusion, in which he states that, "None [her neighbours at Apple Orchard] ever saw her practice Falun Gong" but never ascribes the views of her neighbours to himself by writing, "I believe none ever saw her practice Falun Gong" or something to that effect. Yet current version of the edit is: "None ever saw her practice Falun Gong," he concluded. suggesting that Pan concurs with the interpretation of Chunling's neighbours account of Chunling. As to how we can resolve this issue, some counsel can be found in your analysis of the quote, in which you take note of the relevance of his interviews with Chunling's neighbours in reaching his conclusion, and I'd propose a solution that does justice to the two ways which we understand the term "conclusion" by incorporating both its literal and attitudinal form in a quote like this (or something to its effect): "Pan concludes his article by saying that none of Chunling's neighbours he interviewed ever saw her practice Falun Gong." It acknowledges the literal conclusion of Pan's article while maintaining detached objectivity that is in keeping with Pan's attitude towards the self-immolation issue within the context of the article.

2) You take issue with my interpretation of Pan's article as presenting, "a number of reasons the two may have self-immolated, including the possibility that it was 'black propaganda.'" You go on make the subsidiary arguments that the 'black propaganda' quote is unwarranted as it is implied, but not actaully stated and that my suggestiong that "people didn't suggest that she might have self-immolate because she was desperate" should not be included because this is bordering on original synthesis.

Before I respond to the subsidiary arguments, I see that you have not taken issue with the main argument, which is my interpretation of Pan's article as focusing on the motives for public burning (corroboration can be found in the caption of the article, which states, "Motive for Public Burning Intensifies Fight Over Falun Gong") and not on the identity of Chunling, and will understand this to be a concession by you barring your response. In regards to the black propaganda, two points: a) the fact that something is implied doesn't mean that it can't be mentioned on Wikipedia, subject to the proviso that the writer of the argument states that the argumet is implied; b) the term black propaganda is not a matter of implication as the Falun Gong in the article explicitly state that they believe the CPC of, "staging the incident," which is in keeping with the definition of black propaganda. The black propaganda allegation by the Falun Gong is more appropriate when one further considers the function of black propaganda (which is to, "villify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy" [8]) and see how the condition obtains, "The ruling Communist Party has launched an all-out campaign to use the incident to prove its claim that Falun Gong is a dangerous cult," [9] and "Every morning and night, the state-controlled media carry fresh attacks against Falun Gong and its U.S.-based leader, Li Hongzhi." [10]

As for the argument in which I say that "people didn't suggest that she might have self-immolate because she was desperate," I cannot recall making a statement of that sort. Perhaps you can clarify?

3) You write that I introduce original synthesis regarding the CNN producer's quote when I, "drew a direct connection between the fact that the CNN producer saw no child, to the government's claim that the victim received a tracheotomy." On further evaluation, I concede that argument but maintain that the government claim of the victim receiving tracheotomy is important in counterbalancing the CNN producer's account of the events so as to maintain neutrality in the article. Perhaps something like this would work: "the CNN producer said that she did not see any children among the self-immolators; there were government claim that the victim received tracheotomy."

Festermunk (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my brevity in response to such a well considered reply. On the first point, how about something simple like "None of the neighbours interviewed ever saw her practice Falun Gong." On the second point, we could say that the article called into question Liu's identity and her motives for participating in the self-immolation, and from there just not how she was described by the community. To be honest, my interpretation of Pan's article is partly based on reading other books that reflect on it. Most scholars just emphasise the fact that the profile painted—that of a troubled woman who beat her mother and daughter, was paid to keep men company, and was not known by her community to practice FG—is highly inconsistent with the normal profile of a practitioner, or with the state's depictions of her as an "avid practitioner". Anyways, do you have a specific proposal on how that one might read? Maybe to keep this conversation from being fragmented, we can continue it on the relevant talk page.—Zujine|talk 17:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.7.19 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Falun Gong 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 16, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong 2 evidence submissions

Please note this supplementary information regarding evidence submissions from drafting arbitrator Elen of the Roads. All parties submitting evidence are reminded that claims must be supported by diffs at all times. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Falung Gong 2 evidence phase deadline

This is a reminder that all evidence in the Falung Gong 2 case should be submitted here by Saturday the 16th of June. For the Arbitration Committee Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zujine. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Proposed decision.
Message added 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 closed

An arbitration case regarding Falun Gong has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Homunculus is banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces, for a period of one year.
2. Ohconfucius is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces.
3. At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, editors may be placed on mandated external review for all articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed. Editors on mandated external review must observe the following restrictions on editing within the designated subject area:
   1. Any major edit (defined as any edit that goes beyond simple and uncontroversial spelling, grammatical, and/or stylistic corrections to article content) must be proposed on the article's talk page. This proposal must be discussed by interested editors until a consensus to make the edit is formed.
   2. Once consensus has been reached in support of the edit, the proposal must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor for neutrality and verifiability of the information presented.
   3. When approval is received from the uninvolved editor, the editor subject to mandated external review may make the edit to the article. Violations of these restrictions may be reported to Arbitration Enforcement.
4. Upon the expiry of the applicable ban, Homunculus is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
5. Should the applicable ban be lifted, Ohconfucius is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
6. Colipon is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Rape in Northeast India

Hello Zujine, I thought you might want to be made aware of a recently started RfC which proposes changes which very closely parallel suggestions you made concerning the article in question. Snow (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. When you recently edited Human rights issues in Northeast India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bodo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Article Daniyal Mueenuddin talk page

Hi with reference to the above page I have left a new comment for you there , cheers! AsadUK200 (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

Thanks

...For helping out on the Feng Jianmei article. I had a hard time maintaining momentum on that one after the original author disappeared. Let's just hope the reviewer doesn't do the same! Homunculus (duihua) 03:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Still a lot more to do, but I think it is coming along. Wish I had more time to dedicate to WP these days. —Zujine|talk 04:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on making Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei a Good Article

		The Good Article Barnstar
		I, Bstephens393, award you this GA barnstar for your outstanding contributions in making Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei a Good Article. Bstephens393 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well done with the 610 article. If you ever need a reviewer for another article, or just a third opinion, I would be happy to help! Keihatsu ^talk 03:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work Keihatsu. The article came out nicely. —Zujine|talk 15:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Note Talk:Fazhengnian

User:Edouardlicn has been actively (to some including me, aggressively) in editing content on Falungong-related content in both Chinese and English versions of Wikipedia. I have encountered many personal attacks by him when I tried to convince other Wikipedians that the article on Fazhengnian should be deleted on the ground that it is not supported by any primary sources. I believe that I made myself clear that if any secondary sources exist, the article may be able to stay. Not a supporter of Falungong or any religious or political group myself, I have been attacked personally because of my opposition to his viewpoint. Now s/he (not sure about his or her gender, my guess is a man) filed for contested deletion on "Fazhengnian", kept on arguing that Chinese government and Falungong sources are enough to support an encyclopedia article. This message is just a heads up from me, a concerned Wikipedian. --Hanteng (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

re

You should copy this cotent to Hanteng's talk page itself,for he is doing the same thing as me.--Edouardlicn (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your take is wanted on this template discussion

Happy new year! There is a discussion to properly rename the Template_talk:Primary_sources#Propose making the contents match the title so as not to conflate the issue of using primary sources and the issue of lacking third-party sources. I hope that you can express your view there. --Hanteng (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouraging words

Thank you for your encouraging comments (on my research). I am releasing some of the results in Zh discussion pages (also on my zh user page). We will organize also a conference at Oxford on China and the New Internet World, I hope that you can help spreading the word (not here of course, but for those who are interested.) --Hanteng (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will definitely let some colleagues back home in England know about it. —Zujine|talk 20:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for peer review

Thank you for taking the time to look over Glasnost Meeting. I have added more references and will close the request for feedback when the month is over. Nkrita (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edmond Dantès, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hughes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PantherLeapord (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up. Cheers —Zujine|talk 11:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jupiter Bokondji, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Staff Benda Bilili may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Jupiter Bokondji]], a musician who is also involved in Staff Benda Bilili. The film was produced [[by [[Renaud Barret]] and [[Florent de la Tullaye]] (aka [[Belle Kinoise]]), who have been

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Falun Gong outside mainland China

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Falun Gong outside mainland China you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Keihatsu -- Keihatsu (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Falun Gong outside mainland China, which you nominated as a good article has passed. Well done, and I'm sorry it took me so long! Keihatsu talk 12:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Millennium series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Walker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peaches Geldof, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarah Ferguson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saint Barthélemy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• visits continued for the next hundred years until formal colinisation began taking shape.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tb.html CIA World Factbook: SAINT

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Seeking Your Opinion on COIN

This time last year you very kindly assisted me in making updates I proposed for the Superfly Presents page. On the page's talk page where I noted my conflict of interest, you commented my proposed additions were an improvement and thanked me for taking the above board approach to making edits on behalf of a client. Recently a seemingly new Wikipedian created a discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard questioning my approach.

It's my feeling that unless the public relations community can operate transparently, ethically, and within Wikipedia's Terms of Use in order to work together with volunteer editors, that many will resort to anonymous and potentially contentious Wikipedia editing. I am concerned that if transparency is penalized, others will be less inclined to follow the same path of taking the above board approach. And now that the Wikipedia Board is reviewing a potential Terms of use/Paid contribution amendment [11], it's evident how important the handling of paid contributions is to the community.

If you wouldn't mind, I would really appreciate you weighing in on this on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard.

NinaSpezz (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll take a look at the discussion and get back to you. —Zujine|talk 10:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cittie of Yorke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

An invitation to join WikiProject Women writers

Hello Zujine/Archive 1! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject Women writers, an outreach effort which aims at improving articles about women writers on Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thank you!

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amanda Coe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Room at the Top. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Garden Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westminster Council. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Night Will Fall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sidney Bernstein. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helen Macdonald (writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Falconer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Awful Auntie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Mal Peet Headshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mal Peet Headshot.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dman41689 (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vendela Vida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Believer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)