I have reverted your "move" because you did it the wrong way, per copy and paste. To move a page, you must use the "move" function at the top of the page, or else the history of the old page won't be carried over. See WP:MOVE. Also, before moving such a page, please make sure that you have consensus for it, and use correct capitalisation: "Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China" instead of "Reports of Organ Harvesting from Live Falun Gong Practitioners in China". Sandstein ( talk) 06:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And please use edit summaries with your edits. Thanks, Sandstein ( talk) 06:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there I've taken the liberty to be bold and archived your talk page from the history. It is bad practice to blank your talk page when you want to start anew, please see Help:Archiving a talk page for more details on how to archive the next time you want to start anew. -- antilived T | C | G 01:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Kindly do not revert when consensus is overwhelmingly against you, per WP:DE WP:EW and so forth. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You greeted me at my user page, [1] and I want to say hello back. However, I am presently being considered for a one-year ban from wikipedia, and because this could happen any day, I want you to know that I received your greeting and greet you back. You may be interested in the discussion for the Arb committee on the subject of homeopathy that is presently taking place but may finish very shortly at: [2] You may also want to see the Workshop page and the Proposed decision pages too, as well as the Discussion pages for each of these items. I do not mean to "canvass" you. I would send a similar message to anyone who contacted me directly through my user page and who does not seem to be aware of the Arb case at this moment. DanaUllman Talk 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you get some free time, please have a look here, I would appreciate your comments on the CIPFG and Epoch Times, as they relay to the FG series of articles as a whole. MrPrada ( talk) 18:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:1999OrganTransplantRise.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast ( talk) 15:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I have notified Bobby fletcher that I will open an RfC on his conduct if he continues. I don't know if this is canvassing, as it's not my intention. Someone else needs to write on his talk page, asking him not to do any more incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, etc.. You may wish to do so. diffs:
-- Asdfg 12345 01:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop assuming
ownership of articles such as
Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as
edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a
block from editing. Please stop and discuss all major changes on the talk page first as it is a sensitive topic.
antilived
T |
C |
G
11:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China, you will be
blocked for
vandalism. I have already warned you on
User talk:218.248.68.63. If you continue you WILL be blocked for disruptive editing.
antilived
T |
C |
G
04:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see where he comment from the anonymous IP is soured from - directly from a CCP website. RSF calls CCP the worlds biggest propaganda agency. Further, I don't think its a coincidence that such things show up on this page - US Congress, HR organizations all have reported on how the CCP has extended his propaganda campaign outside of china, even to the point of physical assault of practitioners and supporters - even in new york.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 05:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Amnesty notes that all protests by Falun Gong have been entirely peaceful even in china, even during the period when the persecution was the harshest. David Ownby notes" violence of any sort is so alien to falun gong".
Against this most brutal persecution, where practitioners have lost the lives of friends and their closest family, they have protested only in the most peaceful manner - by passing out flyers, sitting in silent meditation outside consulates, etc. Falun Gong's human rights work has been commended on highly by analysts.
Also, kindly see these pages - they are very much worth reading:
How could we allow such, CCP paid and sponsored disinformation campaign pushers to run rampant on these pages? Invariably that is completely against wikipedia policies. That is the main concern I have against such propagandistic edits.
Also note that just above the propagandistic edit on the talk page, we have a user raising concerns where a neutral editor "omvegan" disappeared after posting his email on this talk page. These are matters of extremely serious and genuine concern.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 05:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A note: Falun Gong have top sources vouching for the veracity of their reportage, like David Ownby, Human Rights Watch, Arthur Waldron, David Matas and David Kilgour, and on and on. Their sources have strong external support. The CCP has none of this, and those same sources state clearly that the CCP's information is pure propaganda. So it's not a legitimate comparison. For the purposes of these articles, Falun Gong sources are still primary sources. Primary sources can be used in articles about themselves, and of course there are various rules about how this is to be done. But Falun Gong sources are regarded as legitimate by high quality, independent sources, and they are far more relevant to the Falun Gong articles than thoroughly discredited CCP sources are. Just for an example, this is from David Ownby's recent book. This guy is like the Falun Gong scholar, like the highest quality source on Falun Gong available: "I fully and openly acknowledge that the Chinese government’s campaign against Falun Gong has constituted and continues to constitute a grievous, tragic violation of the human rights of those practitioners who have been arrested, tortured, and killed… I accept as true much of what Falun Gong publications have to say about the brutality of the Chinese state’s campaign against them… These violations have been exposed and condemned by such well-known human rights organizations as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as by numerous Falun Gong organizations, whose quite professional publications have been generally accepted as legitimate and trustworthy by these human rights organizations." (emphasis mine) This is in the introduction.-- Asdfg 12345 08:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Just letting you know, I've moved your report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Antilived (moved from AIV). Feel free to continue there. – Luna Santin ( talk) 05:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I had repeatedly pointed out that the source used itself is completely biased and unworthy of inclusion in the article - kindly read the user's response to my comments on the article's talk page. One the surface this may seem like just commntary added from a video, - but the video itself is a pure propaganda piece from the CCP - and that is why I felt the edit was a serious violation of wikipedia policies. The article and related article are on probation by the Arbitration Committe - and addition of such content, despite repeated requests to refrain I feel is clearly disruptive.
I request you to kindly investigate the issue in greater depth.. the matter is not as simple as a commentary from a video being added to the article - where the video is sourced from, it being well documented that the source is engaged in a massive dis-information propaganda campaign; despite repeatedly being pointed out that the source itself is not something that even remotely conforms to wikipedia standards, the user's insistence that the commentary be added to the article - an article that is on probation by the Arbitration Committee - that is what i considered very much worthy of intervention from Administrators.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 06:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
please desist from posting (or reverting back) false vandalism warnings at user talk pages. Also, reverting back the warning to PCPP not to make edits without good edit summaries is a bit hypocritical, since you yourself as used false vandalism claims in various edit summaries lately. -- Soman ( talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Communist Party of China. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. --
Soman (
talk)
16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked for a period of 55 hours for edit warring on Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety talk 16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Sir,
I am sorry about repeatedly reverting, but kindly note that the edits I reverted were obvious vandalism, identified as vandalism by another editor too. The particular user, PCPP, has been repeatedly engaging in vandalism on these pages. He had engaged in a similar pattern of vandalism on Aug 4, vandalizing almost all Falun Gong related pages on the same day.
The particular edit I had reverted were characterized as vandalism by another editor also and a warning tag had been to the user's talk page. The tag was removed by PCPP, repeatedly, with no discussion.
Please compare the vanalistic edit made by PCPP on Aug 4: [] to teh one made today - exactly the same - removal of several apragaraphs of text. I believe I was right in assumming this was a genuine case of vandalism - kindly point out to me if i am wrong.
Removal of content of Aug 4: [11]
Removal of content on Aug 16: [12]
Please note that the edits I reverted was genuine vandalism, involving removal of several paragraphs of well sourced text, iamges and graphs.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Sir, Kindly note that pages of agreed upon content ( very well sourced,all from Amnesty, Kilgour-Matas Reports, US Congress reports etc) were deleted in that edit, several images had been removed, the info box on the right had been removed, almost every section renamed, and some of the well sourced material replaced with almost irrelevant and poorly sourced stuff - all without a single line of discussion on the talk page . - Exactly what the user had attempted to do before on august 4.
Also please note the kind of language the user had been resorting to in his recent edit summaries.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 17:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Dilip rajeev ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The reverts I had done, I believe, constituted reverting of obvious vandalism. The edit of the user, which I was forced to revert, included: *Deletion of pages of well sourced content - including from Amnesty, Kilgour MAtas Reports, a Yale Univeristy Thesis,, US Congress reports,etc. A 5739 word article, shortened to 3162 words. And addition of an entirely new section, with content that fails WP:RS * Since I believe deletion of 45% of the article ( all of which were highly sourced - from sources of the highest repute on the subject including Amnesty, KM reports etc) without a single word of discussion on talk pages, constitute obvious vandalism, I believe I was justified in reverting it. *Note that the material he appended at teh end of the article was material in completel violation of WP:RS, sourced from a Chinese propaganda website. * Also please note that the user had renamed almost every single section, and completely messed up the layout of the entire article. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 17:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I've taken a look at the article history, and these edits were clearly not vandalism. It was a clear content dispute, and the continuous reverting from you wasn't constructive. The block serves a protective purpose because you clearly don't understand what constitutes vandalism, and what doesn't and edit warred to break the three revert rule. I therefore have to decline this request. — Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The , which I was forced to revert, included:
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 17:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Dilip rajeev ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Kindly note that the edit on which I did the revert included blanking of 50% of the body of a stable, existing article, without a word of discussion on the talk page, and further with a specious edit summary. If that doesnot constitute vandalism - I wonder does ?
Decline reason:
Ryan's advice is sage and you should consider heeding it. The block is justified and stands. east718 // talk // email // 03:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Phone-call transcripts from the Kilgour-Matas Report
[2] 1. Call to Dr. Lu, Nanning City Minzu Hospital, Guangxi M: "...Could you find organs from Falun Gong practitioners?" Hosp: "Let me tell you, we have no way to get (them). It's rather difficult to get it now in Guangxi. If you cannot wait, I suggest you go to Guangzhou because it's very easy for them to get the organs. They are able to look for (them) nation wide. As they are performing the liver transplant, they can get the kidney for you at the same time, so it's very easy for them to do. Many places where supplies are short go to them for help..." M: "Why is it easy for them to get?" Hosp: "Because they are an important institution. They contact the (judicial) system in the name of the whole university." M: "Then they use organs from Falun Gong practitioners?" Hosp: "Correct..." M: "...what you used before (organs from Falun Gong practitioners), was it from detention centre(s) or prison(s)?" Hosp: "From prisons." M: "...and it was from healthy Falun Gong practitioners...?" Hosp: "Correct. We would choose the good ones because we assure the quality in our operation." M: "That means you choose the organs yourself." Hosp: "Correct..." M: "Usually, how old is the organ supplier?" Hosp: "Usually in their thirties." M: "... Then you will go to the prison to select yourself?" Hosp: "Correct. We must select it." M: "What if the chosen one doesn't want to have blood drawn?" Hosp: "He will for sure let us do it." M: "How?" Hosp: "They will for sure find a way. What do you worry about? These kinds of things should not be of any concern to you. They have their procedures." M: "Does the person know that his organ will be removed?" Hosp: "No, he doesn't."
2. Call to Shanghai Jiaotong University Hospital’s Liver Transplant Centre: M: I want to know how long [the patients] have to wait [for a liver transplant]. Dr. Dai: The supply of organs we have, we have every day. We do them every day. M: We want fresh, alive ones. Dr. Dai: They are all alive, all alive… M: How many [liver transplants] have you done? Dr. Dai: We have done 400 to 500 cases… Your major job is to come, prepare the money, enough money, and come. M: How much is it? Dr. Dai: If everything goes smoothly, it’s about RMB 150,000… RMB 200,000. M: How long do I have to wait? Dr. Dai: I need to check your blood type… If you come today, I may do it for you within one week. M: I heard some come from those who practise Falun Gong, those who are very healthy. Dr. Dai: Yes, we have. I can’t talk clearly to you over the phone. M: If you can find me this type, I am coming very soon. Dr. Dai: It’s ok. Please come. M: … What is your last name?... Dr. Dai: I’m Doctor Dai. |
Kilgour and Matas state that one of the “most disturbing” moments in researching the report was the discovery of a massive population of imprisoned Falun gong practitioners who remained unidentified. Falun Gong prisoners of conscience may refuse to give their names for fear of persecution against their families. In these cases, no one outside the prison system knows their whereabouts. They state that there is a significant lack of representation among freed Falun Gong practitioners, from those who failed to self identify while they were imprisoned—these 'disappearances', the authors contend, are ready candidates for live organ harvesting. [2]
Investigative reports from Sky News and BBC add evidence to the findings of the Kilgour-Matas report. [3] The Christian Science Monitor says the report’s evidence is circumstantial but persuasive. [4] The Chinese Embassy in Canada dismissed the Kilgour-Matas report soon after its release as "rumors and totally groundless," stating that China abided by World Health Organization principles. Amnesty International considers this statement "to be at odds with the facts in view of the widely documented practice of the buying and selling of organs of death penalty prisoners in China." [5]
On Apr 19, 2006, Sky News went undercover with cameras inside Chinese hospitals where nurses and doctors confirmed readily-available organs are taken from prisoners, and that the hospital's abundance of donors is due to its close connections with Chinese security forces. Sky News' Website says that "China has been accused of taking organs from executed prisoners to supply the international transplant market. British surgeons say there is evidence that prisoners are being selected as potential donors before they are killed." [6]
The Washington Times also reported on the case. A journalist seeking political asylum in the United States, "Jin Zhong", also claimed knowledge of the harvesting operation, and added that hospital workers had taken jewelry and watches from the dead and sold them. [7]
The report[from US Congress] continues that "[i]ndependent of these specific allegations, the United States remains concerned over China’s repression of Falun Gong practitioners and by reports of organ harvesting."Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). Kilgour and Matas later accused Wu of bad faith for drawing his conclusions without interviewing the witnesses.
[2]
Based on our further research, we[Kilgour and Matas] are reinforced in our original conclusion that the allegations are true. We believe that there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners. [2]
"He was admitted to the No 1 Peoples' Hospital‑a civilian facility‑and during the ensuing two weeks four kidneys were brought for testing against his blood and other factors. None proved compatible because of his anti‑bodies; all were taken away.” He returned to the hospital two months later. “Another four kidneys were similarly tested; when the eighth proved compatible, the transplant operation was successfully completed... His surgeon... Dr. Tan Jianming of the Nanjing military region... carried sheets of paper containing lists of prospective 'donors', based on various tissue and blood characteristics, from which he would select names.The doctor was observed at various times to leave the hospital in uniform and return 2‑3 hours later with containers bearing kidneys. Dr. Tan told the recipient that the eighth kidney came from an executed prisoner." [2]"The military have access to prisons and prisoners. Their operations are even more secretive than those of the civilian government. They are impervious to the rule of law." [2]
Kilgour and Matas, in their report, point to the information they found on several Chinese hospital websites which they describe as "self-accusatory". For instance, in the 'question and answer' section of such a site is found:
The FAQ section from another chinese organ transplant website, referred to by Kilgour and Matas in their report, states:
Many such websites show graphs with soaring organ transplantation figures—these start going up after 1999, when the persecution of Falun Gong began. In addition, many such website state that the organs can be found "immediately". The CIOT website advertises the waiting time for a kidney transplant as being "as short as a week and no longer than a month" [11], while the average waiting time for such a transplant in other countries is more than 5 years. [12]
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 20:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That's unorthodox. Do it if you want though, I don't care. You've been challenged on the use of that term, though, and I was just pointing it out. My thought is that it creates unnecessary juxtaposition, whereas discussion is better, and in time can prove things out. -- Asdfg 12345 07:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Two things
1. If you are talking about material related to an SPA which I blanked out - I did it, after considering the suggestion of another user, to protect my identity - realizing that it was in the best interest of my physical safety in the "real-world" to just stay away from that topic.
2. Second, if you are talking about your recent baseless comment - my talk page is not a place for you to come and label my edits the way you want. I understand, attacking other editors is an easy way of improving one's image(don't know if that is "orthodox" though) on wiki but before you make such accusations you may want to read up wikipedia guidelines on the issue. "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary"- WP:Vandal. When you are using my talk - not for any productive purpose - but to characterize my edits in a particular manner, apparently to thus achieve your ends, I believe, I have the full right to get those statements - which I consider nothing but an intentional, blunt mis-characterization of my edits - out of my talk. If you have an issue with it - please raise it on Administrator noticeboard or elsewhere more appropriate. I'd be more than happy to clarify things there. Thanks.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 07:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Further to a recent
complaint I received regarding your editing at the Falun Gong subject area, I am issuing you with a final warning against improper conduct when editing those articles.
Whilst editing articles on this topic, please bear in mind Wikipedia's prohibition on using the revert function to remove changes to the encyclopedia that you do not agree with. This applies even where the changes appear to be undoing information that is reliably sourced; in such a case, you should contact an administrator and ask for assistance in having that editor dealt with, rather than blankly revert. I'd also remind you that Wikipedia's purpose is to present verifiable articles in a neutral point of view; deliberately introducing a non-neutral viewpoint into an article is quite contrary to what the project stands for, and will not be looked on kindly. If any section of this warning is breached, or your actions on a Falun Gong article gives reason for concern, then you may be, (a) blocked from editing; and/or, (b) reported to the Arbitration Committee, per the arrangements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation, with a request to have you banned from the subject area. It's disappointing that I'm having to issue blocks to experienced editors in this case, but there truly is a lack of professionalism and camaraderie in the working relationships between a number of editors working on this article. Regretfully, AGK 10:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading
File:20090315 Divarttwo0315.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to put you through this again, but the recent goings on have been making curious reading. There are certain facts which remain unclear about your use of Inactive user account 001 ( talk · contribs), and your comments are solicited here. Ohconfucius ( talk) 09:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
That was the old alternate account, just renamed under the suggestion of an admin. I have not logged in to the alternate account since. Please see contribs.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 13:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Analysis Tianenmen False Fire GIF.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 18:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:ImmolaterStillfromFalseFire.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Dilip, I apologize for jumping the gun and accusing you of something that may have been an accident. I did not assume good faith, and for that, I am sorry. I would like to invite you to join the discussions for the Sathya Sai Baba page here. We are currently making a decision about the reliability of Asian Voice, and if we should have the videos on the page. Thanks, Onopearls ( t/ c) 16:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's the link to the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dilip_rajeev. Radiantenergy ( talk) 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Onopearls (
t/
c)
17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
These are not reverts - but content disputes on different parts. Some plain blanking done without any rationale while I was engaged in editing the article. Call it an edit war if you must. But these are not "8 reverts".
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 19:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Was BC Skeptics found as an unreliable source for 1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam? I thought BLP concern was the main argument for keeping it out of the Sai Baba article. It was done unconsciously anyway. I restored delted info and had pared out poorly sourced stuff such as to Priddy - but guess I would have missed this source. Could you pointout where exactly it is being used?
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 19:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I checked once more and I dont see BC Skeptics in the list of references of that article. Are you sure it is being used?
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You have been mentioned here by me. You may want to take a look. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
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) 01:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_2 Irbisgreif ( talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
==
Speedy deletion nomination of
File:SaiBabaBedroomMurderVictims.jpg==
A tag has been placed on
File:SaiBabaBedroomMurderVictims.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under
section I10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip [i.e. a
Word document or
PDF file] that has no encyclopedic use.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding
{{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Irbisgreif (
talk)
04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:SaiBabaBedroomMurderVictims.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Irbisgreif (
talk)
05:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:KilgourandMatasPresentReportAtNewsConference.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.
If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{ non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Irbisgreif (
talk)
05:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:WangbinKMReportspic2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Irbisgreif ( talk) 05:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Mr Kilgour in press Conference.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Irbisgreif ( talk) 05:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Atlanta proclamation honorary citizen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Irbisgreif ( talk) 05:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:20090315 Divarttwo0315.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Post1999OrganHavestingRise.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 08:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Post 1999 Raise in Liver Transplants.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 08:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I wish to inform you that an arbitration enforcement case concerning your bahaviour has been filed here. Ohconfucius ( talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Please be advised that I have requested clarification regarding the ArbCom ruling on Falun Gong at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation. John Carter ( talk) 16:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your "move" because you did it the wrong way, per copy and paste. To move a page, you must use the "move" function at the top of the page, or else the history of the old page won't be carried over. See WP:MOVE. Also, before moving such a page, please make sure that you have consensus for it, and use correct capitalisation: "Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China" instead of "Reports of Organ Harvesting from Live Falun Gong Practitioners in China". Sandstein ( talk) 06:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And please use edit summaries with your edits. Thanks, Sandstein ( talk) 06:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there I've taken the liberty to be bold and archived your talk page from the history. It is bad practice to blank your talk page when you want to start anew, please see Help:Archiving a talk page for more details on how to archive the next time you want to start anew. -- antilived T | C | G 01:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Kindly do not revert when consensus is overwhelmingly against you, per WP:DE WP:EW and so forth. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You greeted me at my user page, [1] and I want to say hello back. However, I am presently being considered for a one-year ban from wikipedia, and because this could happen any day, I want you to know that I received your greeting and greet you back. You may be interested in the discussion for the Arb committee on the subject of homeopathy that is presently taking place but may finish very shortly at: [2] You may also want to see the Workshop page and the Proposed decision pages too, as well as the Discussion pages for each of these items. I do not mean to "canvass" you. I would send a similar message to anyone who contacted me directly through my user page and who does not seem to be aware of the Arb case at this moment. DanaUllman Talk 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you get some free time, please have a look here, I would appreciate your comments on the CIPFG and Epoch Times, as they relay to the FG series of articles as a whole. MrPrada ( talk) 18:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:1999OrganTransplantRise.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast ( talk) 15:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I have notified Bobby fletcher that I will open an RfC on his conduct if he continues. I don't know if this is canvassing, as it's not my intention. Someone else needs to write on his talk page, asking him not to do any more incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, etc.. You may wish to do so. diffs:
-- Asdfg 12345 01:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop assuming
ownership of articles such as
Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as
edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a
block from editing. Please stop and discuss all major changes on the talk page first as it is a sensitive topic.
antilived
T |
C |
G
11:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China, you will be
blocked for
vandalism. I have already warned you on
User talk:218.248.68.63. If you continue you WILL be blocked for disruptive editing.
antilived
T |
C |
G
04:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see where he comment from the anonymous IP is soured from - directly from a CCP website. RSF calls CCP the worlds biggest propaganda agency. Further, I don't think its a coincidence that such things show up on this page - US Congress, HR organizations all have reported on how the CCP has extended his propaganda campaign outside of china, even to the point of physical assault of practitioners and supporters - even in new york.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 05:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Amnesty notes that all protests by Falun Gong have been entirely peaceful even in china, even during the period when the persecution was the harshest. David Ownby notes" violence of any sort is so alien to falun gong".
Against this most brutal persecution, where practitioners have lost the lives of friends and their closest family, they have protested only in the most peaceful manner - by passing out flyers, sitting in silent meditation outside consulates, etc. Falun Gong's human rights work has been commended on highly by analysts.
Also, kindly see these pages - they are very much worth reading:
How could we allow such, CCP paid and sponsored disinformation campaign pushers to run rampant on these pages? Invariably that is completely against wikipedia policies. That is the main concern I have against such propagandistic edits.
Also note that just above the propagandistic edit on the talk page, we have a user raising concerns where a neutral editor "omvegan" disappeared after posting his email on this talk page. These are matters of extremely serious and genuine concern.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 05:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A note: Falun Gong have top sources vouching for the veracity of their reportage, like David Ownby, Human Rights Watch, Arthur Waldron, David Matas and David Kilgour, and on and on. Their sources have strong external support. The CCP has none of this, and those same sources state clearly that the CCP's information is pure propaganda. So it's not a legitimate comparison. For the purposes of these articles, Falun Gong sources are still primary sources. Primary sources can be used in articles about themselves, and of course there are various rules about how this is to be done. But Falun Gong sources are regarded as legitimate by high quality, independent sources, and they are far more relevant to the Falun Gong articles than thoroughly discredited CCP sources are. Just for an example, this is from David Ownby's recent book. This guy is like the Falun Gong scholar, like the highest quality source on Falun Gong available: "I fully and openly acknowledge that the Chinese government’s campaign against Falun Gong has constituted and continues to constitute a grievous, tragic violation of the human rights of those practitioners who have been arrested, tortured, and killed… I accept as true much of what Falun Gong publications have to say about the brutality of the Chinese state’s campaign against them… These violations have been exposed and condemned by such well-known human rights organizations as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as by numerous Falun Gong organizations, whose quite professional publications have been generally accepted as legitimate and trustworthy by these human rights organizations." (emphasis mine) This is in the introduction.-- Asdfg 12345 08:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Just letting you know, I've moved your report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Antilived (moved from AIV). Feel free to continue there. – Luna Santin ( talk) 05:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I had repeatedly pointed out that the source used itself is completely biased and unworthy of inclusion in the article - kindly read the user's response to my comments on the article's talk page. One the surface this may seem like just commntary added from a video, - but the video itself is a pure propaganda piece from the CCP - and that is why I felt the edit was a serious violation of wikipedia policies. The article and related article are on probation by the Arbitration Committe - and addition of such content, despite repeated requests to refrain I feel is clearly disruptive.
I request you to kindly investigate the issue in greater depth.. the matter is not as simple as a commentary from a video being added to the article - where the video is sourced from, it being well documented that the source is engaged in a massive dis-information propaganda campaign; despite repeatedly being pointed out that the source itself is not something that even remotely conforms to wikipedia standards, the user's insistence that the commentary be added to the article - an article that is on probation by the Arbitration Committee - that is what i considered very much worthy of intervention from Administrators.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 06:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
please desist from posting (or reverting back) false vandalism warnings at user talk pages. Also, reverting back the warning to PCPP not to make edits without good edit summaries is a bit hypocritical, since you yourself as used false vandalism claims in various edit summaries lately. -- Soman ( talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Communist Party of China. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. --
Soman (
talk)
16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked for a period of 55 hours for edit warring on Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety talk 16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Sir,
I am sorry about repeatedly reverting, but kindly note that the edits I reverted were obvious vandalism, identified as vandalism by another editor too. The particular user, PCPP, has been repeatedly engaging in vandalism on these pages. He had engaged in a similar pattern of vandalism on Aug 4, vandalizing almost all Falun Gong related pages on the same day.
The particular edit I had reverted were characterized as vandalism by another editor also and a warning tag had been to the user's talk page. The tag was removed by PCPP, repeatedly, with no discussion.
Please compare the vanalistic edit made by PCPP on Aug 4: [] to teh one made today - exactly the same - removal of several apragaraphs of text. I believe I was right in assumming this was a genuine case of vandalism - kindly point out to me if i am wrong.
Removal of content of Aug 4: [11]
Removal of content on Aug 16: [12]
Please note that the edits I reverted was genuine vandalism, involving removal of several paragraphs of well sourced text, iamges and graphs.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Sir, Kindly note that pages of agreed upon content ( very well sourced,all from Amnesty, Kilgour-Matas Reports, US Congress reports etc) were deleted in that edit, several images had been removed, the info box on the right had been removed, almost every section renamed, and some of the well sourced material replaced with almost irrelevant and poorly sourced stuff - all without a single line of discussion on the talk page . - Exactly what the user had attempted to do before on august 4.
Also please note the kind of language the user had been resorting to in his recent edit summaries.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 17:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Dilip rajeev ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The reverts I had done, I believe, constituted reverting of obvious vandalism. The edit of the user, which I was forced to revert, included: *Deletion of pages of well sourced content - including from Amnesty, Kilgour MAtas Reports, a Yale Univeristy Thesis,, US Congress reports,etc. A 5739 word article, shortened to 3162 words. And addition of an entirely new section, with content that fails WP:RS * Since I believe deletion of 45% of the article ( all of which were highly sourced - from sources of the highest repute on the subject including Amnesty, KM reports etc) without a single word of discussion on talk pages, constitute obvious vandalism, I believe I was justified in reverting it. *Note that the material he appended at teh end of the article was material in completel violation of WP:RS, sourced from a Chinese propaganda website. * Also please note that the user had renamed almost every single section, and completely messed up the layout of the entire article. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 17:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I've taken a look at the article history, and these edits were clearly not vandalism. It was a clear content dispute, and the continuous reverting from you wasn't constructive. The block serves a protective purpose because you clearly don't understand what constitutes vandalism, and what doesn't and edit warred to break the three revert rule. I therefore have to decline this request. — Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The , which I was forced to revert, included:
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 17:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Dilip rajeev ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Kindly note that the edit on which I did the revert included blanking of 50% of the body of a stable, existing article, without a word of discussion on the talk page, and further with a specious edit summary. If that doesnot constitute vandalism - I wonder does ?
Decline reason:
Ryan's advice is sage and you should consider heeding it. The block is justified and stands. east718 // talk // email // 03:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Phone-call transcripts from the Kilgour-Matas Report
[2] 1. Call to Dr. Lu, Nanning City Minzu Hospital, Guangxi M: "...Could you find organs from Falun Gong practitioners?" Hosp: "Let me tell you, we have no way to get (them). It's rather difficult to get it now in Guangxi. If you cannot wait, I suggest you go to Guangzhou because it's very easy for them to get the organs. They are able to look for (them) nation wide. As they are performing the liver transplant, they can get the kidney for you at the same time, so it's very easy for them to do. Many places where supplies are short go to them for help..." M: "Why is it easy for them to get?" Hosp: "Because they are an important institution. They contact the (judicial) system in the name of the whole university." M: "Then they use organs from Falun Gong practitioners?" Hosp: "Correct..." M: "...what you used before (organs from Falun Gong practitioners), was it from detention centre(s) or prison(s)?" Hosp: "From prisons." M: "...and it was from healthy Falun Gong practitioners...?" Hosp: "Correct. We would choose the good ones because we assure the quality in our operation." M: "That means you choose the organs yourself." Hosp: "Correct..." M: "Usually, how old is the organ supplier?" Hosp: "Usually in their thirties." M: "... Then you will go to the prison to select yourself?" Hosp: "Correct. We must select it." M: "What if the chosen one doesn't want to have blood drawn?" Hosp: "He will for sure let us do it." M: "How?" Hosp: "They will for sure find a way. What do you worry about? These kinds of things should not be of any concern to you. They have their procedures." M: "Does the person know that his organ will be removed?" Hosp: "No, he doesn't."
2. Call to Shanghai Jiaotong University Hospital’s Liver Transplant Centre: M: I want to know how long [the patients] have to wait [for a liver transplant]. Dr. Dai: The supply of organs we have, we have every day. We do them every day. M: We want fresh, alive ones. Dr. Dai: They are all alive, all alive… M: How many [liver transplants] have you done? Dr. Dai: We have done 400 to 500 cases… Your major job is to come, prepare the money, enough money, and come. M: How much is it? Dr. Dai: If everything goes smoothly, it’s about RMB 150,000… RMB 200,000. M: How long do I have to wait? Dr. Dai: I need to check your blood type… If you come today, I may do it for you within one week. M: I heard some come from those who practise Falun Gong, those who are very healthy. Dr. Dai: Yes, we have. I can’t talk clearly to you over the phone. M: If you can find me this type, I am coming very soon. Dr. Dai: It’s ok. Please come. M: … What is your last name?... Dr. Dai: I’m Doctor Dai. |
Kilgour and Matas state that one of the “most disturbing” moments in researching the report was the discovery of a massive population of imprisoned Falun gong practitioners who remained unidentified. Falun Gong prisoners of conscience may refuse to give their names for fear of persecution against their families. In these cases, no one outside the prison system knows their whereabouts. They state that there is a significant lack of representation among freed Falun Gong practitioners, from those who failed to self identify while they were imprisoned—these 'disappearances', the authors contend, are ready candidates for live organ harvesting. [2]
Investigative reports from Sky News and BBC add evidence to the findings of the Kilgour-Matas report. [3] The Christian Science Monitor says the report’s evidence is circumstantial but persuasive. [4] The Chinese Embassy in Canada dismissed the Kilgour-Matas report soon after its release as "rumors and totally groundless," stating that China abided by World Health Organization principles. Amnesty International considers this statement "to be at odds with the facts in view of the widely documented practice of the buying and selling of organs of death penalty prisoners in China." [5]
On Apr 19, 2006, Sky News went undercover with cameras inside Chinese hospitals where nurses and doctors confirmed readily-available organs are taken from prisoners, and that the hospital's abundance of donors is due to its close connections with Chinese security forces. Sky News' Website says that "China has been accused of taking organs from executed prisoners to supply the international transplant market. British surgeons say there is evidence that prisoners are being selected as potential donors before they are killed." [6]
The Washington Times also reported on the case. A journalist seeking political asylum in the United States, "Jin Zhong", also claimed knowledge of the harvesting operation, and added that hospital workers had taken jewelry and watches from the dead and sold them. [7]
The report[from US Congress] continues that "[i]ndependent of these specific allegations, the United States remains concerned over China’s repression of Falun Gong practitioners and by reports of organ harvesting."Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). Kilgour and Matas later accused Wu of bad faith for drawing his conclusions without interviewing the witnesses.
[2]
Based on our further research, we[Kilgour and Matas] are reinforced in our original conclusion that the allegations are true. We believe that there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners. [2]
"He was admitted to the No 1 Peoples' Hospital‑a civilian facility‑and during the ensuing two weeks four kidneys were brought for testing against his blood and other factors. None proved compatible because of his anti‑bodies; all were taken away.” He returned to the hospital two months later. “Another four kidneys were similarly tested; when the eighth proved compatible, the transplant operation was successfully completed... His surgeon... Dr. Tan Jianming of the Nanjing military region... carried sheets of paper containing lists of prospective 'donors', based on various tissue and blood characteristics, from which he would select names.The doctor was observed at various times to leave the hospital in uniform and return 2‑3 hours later with containers bearing kidneys. Dr. Tan told the recipient that the eighth kidney came from an executed prisoner." [2]"The military have access to prisons and prisoners. Their operations are even more secretive than those of the civilian government. They are impervious to the rule of law." [2]
Kilgour and Matas, in their report, point to the information they found on several Chinese hospital websites which they describe as "self-accusatory". For instance, in the 'question and answer' section of such a site is found:
The FAQ section from another chinese organ transplant website, referred to by Kilgour and Matas in their report, states:
Many such websites show graphs with soaring organ transplantation figures—these start going up after 1999, when the persecution of Falun Gong began. In addition, many such website state that the organs can be found "immediately". The CIOT website advertises the waiting time for a kidney transplant as being "as short as a week and no longer than a month" [11], while the average waiting time for such a transplant in other countries is more than 5 years. [12]
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 20:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That's unorthodox. Do it if you want though, I don't care. You've been challenged on the use of that term, though, and I was just pointing it out. My thought is that it creates unnecessary juxtaposition, whereas discussion is better, and in time can prove things out. -- Asdfg 12345 07:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Two things
1. If you are talking about material related to an SPA which I blanked out - I did it, after considering the suggestion of another user, to protect my identity - realizing that it was in the best interest of my physical safety in the "real-world" to just stay away from that topic.
2. Second, if you are talking about your recent baseless comment - my talk page is not a place for you to come and label my edits the way you want. I understand, attacking other editors is an easy way of improving one's image(don't know if that is "orthodox" though) on wiki but before you make such accusations you may want to read up wikipedia guidelines on the issue. "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary"- WP:Vandal. When you are using my talk - not for any productive purpose - but to characterize my edits in a particular manner, apparently to thus achieve your ends, I believe, I have the full right to get those statements - which I consider nothing but an intentional, blunt mis-characterization of my edits - out of my talk. If you have an issue with it - please raise it on Administrator noticeboard or elsewhere more appropriate. I'd be more than happy to clarify things there. Thanks.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 07:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Further to a recent
complaint I received regarding your editing at the Falun Gong subject area, I am issuing you with a final warning against improper conduct when editing those articles.
Whilst editing articles on this topic, please bear in mind Wikipedia's prohibition on using the revert function to remove changes to the encyclopedia that you do not agree with. This applies even where the changes appear to be undoing information that is reliably sourced; in such a case, you should contact an administrator and ask for assistance in having that editor dealt with, rather than blankly revert. I'd also remind you that Wikipedia's purpose is to present verifiable articles in a neutral point of view; deliberately introducing a non-neutral viewpoint into an article is quite contrary to what the project stands for, and will not be looked on kindly. If any section of this warning is breached, or your actions on a Falun Gong article gives reason for concern, then you may be, (a) blocked from editing; and/or, (b) reported to the Arbitration Committee, per the arrangements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation, with a request to have you banned from the subject area. It's disappointing that I'm having to issue blocks to experienced editors in this case, but there truly is a lack of professionalism and camaraderie in the working relationships between a number of editors working on this article. Regretfully, AGK 10:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading
File:20090315 Divarttwo0315.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to put you through this again, but the recent goings on have been making curious reading. There are certain facts which remain unclear about your use of Inactive user account 001 ( talk · contribs), and your comments are solicited here. Ohconfucius ( talk) 09:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
That was the old alternate account, just renamed under the suggestion of an admin. I have not logged in to the alternate account since. Please see contribs.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 13:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Analysis Tianenmen False Fire GIF.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 18:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:ImmolaterStillfromFalseFire.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Dilip, I apologize for jumping the gun and accusing you of something that may have been an accident. I did not assume good faith, and for that, I am sorry. I would like to invite you to join the discussions for the Sathya Sai Baba page here. We are currently making a decision about the reliability of Asian Voice, and if we should have the videos on the page. Thanks, Onopearls ( t/ c) 16:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's the link to the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dilip_rajeev. Radiantenergy ( talk) 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Onopearls (
t/
c)
17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
These are not reverts - but content disputes on different parts. Some plain blanking done without any rationale while I was engaged in editing the article. Call it an edit war if you must. But these are not "8 reverts".
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 19:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Was BC Skeptics found as an unreliable source for 1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam? I thought BLP concern was the main argument for keeping it out of the Sai Baba article. It was done unconsciously anyway. I restored delted info and had pared out poorly sourced stuff such as to Priddy - but guess I would have missed this source. Could you pointout where exactly it is being used?
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 19:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I checked once more and I dont see BC Skeptics in the list of references of that article. Are you sure it is being used?
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You have been mentioned here by me. You may want to take a look. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
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) 01:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_2 Irbisgreif ( talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
==
Speedy deletion nomination of
File:SaiBabaBedroomMurderVictims.jpg==
A tag has been placed on
File:SaiBabaBedroomMurderVictims.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under
section I10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip [i.e. a
Word document or
PDF file] that has no encyclopedic use.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding
{{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Irbisgreif (
talk)
04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:SaiBabaBedroomMurderVictims.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Irbisgreif (
talk)
05:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:KilgourandMatasPresentReportAtNewsConference.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.
If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{ non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Irbisgreif (
talk)
05:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:WangbinKMReportspic2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Irbisgreif ( talk) 05:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Mr Kilgour in press Conference.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Irbisgreif ( talk) 05:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Atlanta proclamation honorary citizen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Irbisgreif ( talk) 05:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:20090315 Divarttwo0315.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Post1999OrganHavestingRise.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 08:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Post 1999 Raise in Liver Transplants.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 08:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I wish to inform you that an arbitration enforcement case concerning your bahaviour has been filed here. Ohconfucius ( talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Please be advised that I have requested clarification regarding the ArbCom ruling on Falun Gong at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation. John Carter ( talk) 16:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)