→Antifa: some musings |
Marvin 2009 (talk | contribs) →Re: June 2020: new section Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 193: | Line 193: | ||
:Nothing to do with Antifa ''per se'', but the basic typology of political economy goes as follows: Left (communism, anarchism), Moderate Left (social-democracy), Moderate Right (reform liberalism), Right (classical liberalism). While the far left (adventurism) tends to be at the far-end of the Left in the typology, the far right (opportunism), as an ideology, tends to be at its centre. It's important to distinguish between political affinity and antipathy of any given ideology to the underlying political-economic policy it seeks to advance. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
:Nothing to do with Antifa ''per se'', but the basic typology of political economy goes as follows: Left (communism, anarchism), Moderate Left (social-democracy), Moderate Right (reform liberalism), Right (classical liberalism). While the far left (adventurism) tends to be at the far-end of the Left in the typology, the far right (opportunism), as an ideology, tends to be at its centre. It's important to distinguish between political affinity and antipathy of any given ideology to the underlying political-economic policy it seeks to advance. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Re: June 2020 == |
|||
Hello Admin Doug, I saw your reverting on the Falun Gong article and your warning. I do not think they were correct, but did not want to reply yesterday, as I feel details in terms of how Bloodofox's and HorseEyeJack's edits were against multiple policies: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:Due, etc, were presented in: |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive410#User:Marvin_2009_reported_by_User:Horse_Eye_Jack_(Result:_) ANER my response to HorseEyeJack's complain] |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Constant_attempts_at_scrubbing_and_obfuscation_at_Falun_Gong_articles:_Falun_Gong,_Shen_Yun,_The_Epoch_Times,_Li_Hongzhi,_New_Tang_Dynasty_Television,_etc. RSN my response to Bloodofox's complain] |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#The_Last_Paragraph_of_the_Lead_Section my response on the article talk page to HorseEyeJack's reverting] |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Horse_Eye_Jack#Re:_Conflict_of_interest HorseEyeJack talk page in response to HorseEyeJack's attack]. |
|||
But today I saw HorseEyeJack is attacking me again on the article talk page, I feel I need to further make things clear. In response to your words: |
|||
<blockquote>That removed a lot of well-sourced material, replaced unsourced material with a cn tag (which is strictly against policy), etc - far too drastic especially given the talk page discussions which involved more than one person. </blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Falun Gong. You've had too many warnings in the past over different issues. Thus the final warning. Note that I will not block you myself as I've reverted you and am thus involved. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)</blockquote> |
|||
I would like to say a few words below: |
|||
:1. My issues raised in my edit summary was not addressed in your words. <blockquote>The page is also under WP:discretionary sanctions. WP:ARBFLG shows activists tried to promote their views here. The significant change made to the relative stable article in the May by one user had no discussion consensus. Since then the article has been no stable. I am restoring back to the status prior to the change in May.</blockquote> |
|||
:2. I had no intention "replaced unsourced material with a cn tag" at all. I have idea what a cn tag is. I believe, if that is your true concern, it can be easily fixed. |
|||
:3. I did not blank page content. The template removal was not intentional. My point was that the edit Bloodofox made in the mid May was prior to his any discussion. He should have convinced others first before making the huge change. My restoring to the status prior to his edit was meant to be fair. If a huge requires a discussion, I should start from prior to the change. |
|||
:4. Recently Bloodofox added the 1st section after the lead section. This is without discussion either. I tried to move it the Falun Gong Outside China section because the previous 1st section was about the origin of Falun Gong, and the topic of these new groups that were formed by overseas Falun Gong adherents reasonably belongs to the Falun Gong Outside China section, but Bloodofox reverted. |
|||
:5. In this new first section, some paragraphs were directly copied from Los Angeles Magazine's City Think Blog, for example the paragraph "In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle.." was directly copied from the source. Was it not allowed in Wikipedia? In addition, such contents are directly contradictory to other sources, like NBC, etc., as I pinpointed on RSN response earlier. |
|||
:6. I added sourced materials a few days ago, but HorseEyeJack frequectly reverted. |
|||
:7. Yes, I received warnings in the past. My impression is that most warnings were not factual and were from activists who promoted their views with original research on related pages, i tried to prevent them and were threatened by warning. At least two of them were banned on the topic later. I mentioned this in the ANER comment. [[user talk:Marvin 2009 |Precious Stone]] 18:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:52, 12 June 2020
The current date and time is 12 May 2024 T 01:08 UTC.
Discretionary sanctions alerts
|
---|
You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise.
Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right; don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.
Site Map |
Edits |
Email | ||||
Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Wikipedia. That means I am here to help. It does not mean that I have any special status or something, it just means that I get to push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia. If you need help with something, feel free to ask. Click to start a new topic.
|
First, please remember that I am not trying to attack you, demean you, or hurt you in any way. I am only trying to protect the integrity of this project. If I did something wrong, , but remember that I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please keep your comments civil. If you vandalize this page or swear at me, you will not only decrease the likelihood of a response, your edits could get you blocked. (see WP:NPA) When posting, do not assume I know which article you are talking about. If you leave a message saying "Why did you revert me?", I will not know what you mean. If you want a response consisting of something other than "What are you talking about", please include links and, if possible, diffs in your message. At the very least, mention the name of the article or user you are concerned with. If you are blocked from editing, you cannot post here, but your talk page is most likely open for you to edit. To request a review of your block, add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. (replace reason with why you think you should not be blocked.) I watch the talk pages of everyone I block, so I will almost definitely see you make your request. If I am making edits (check Special:Contributions/Doug Weller) and I do not answer your request soon, or you cannot edit your talk page for some reason, you can try sending me an email. Please note, however, that I rarely check my email more than a few times a day, so it may be a couple of hours before I respond. Administrators: If you see me do something that you think is wrong, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo my actions. I would, however, appreciate it if you let me know what I did wrong, so that I can avoid doing it in the future. |
The Da Vinci Globe
Hi Doug, I have an academic relationship with Stefaan Missinne and and I asked for his copyright for this wikipedia article and he accepted. how can i solve the many problems i seem to have ? thanks a lot @davidguam
Amendment on Domestic Terrorism
I dont see that the 7.21 Yuen Long Incidents and 8.31 Prince Edward Incidents are commonly recognized as domestic terrorism, and they dont match the definition of "domestic terrorism" at all.
The hong kong protesters are trying to deliver wrong messages to wikipedia users.
These two incidents should be removed from the examples.
The article Theories of Pashtun origin has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
Take your biased "Administration" elsewhere
Not surprised to see you jumping in and removing attempts to flag potential bias and WP:UNDUE. I will only ask once more, please take your biased "administration" regarding the OANN article elsewhere, if you think I'm not following the rules and policies to create a better Wikipedia - you can ask an independent administrator to interject, you are not impartial to the issue. There are clear guidelines on when to remove templates, and you are not following them. Aeonx (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Short description letter case
Hello! Thank you for pointing out the short description style guide to me. I will use sentence case from now on, and I will revert the neccesary edits I've done. I started adding short descriptions in lower case because the mobile app says "usually begin with a lowercase letter", like in this screenshot: [1]. It might be a good idea to make the style guidelines consistent between the mobile app tool tips and the rest of the Wikipedia project, but I don't know who to notify for this purpose. Thanks again! :) Hxltdq (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Hxltdq: and thank you! You might try Help talk:Mobile access. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Something Important
Hi!! It would fill me with great joy if you would read the Talk page of MRRaja001 under the topic "Rudra". I told you guys from the starting that he was the one who was vandalising articles. In that discussion, he accepted that he is a Vaishnava and was making biased edits. Respected Sir, I follow Sanatana Dharma and I very well know about the diversity of my religion. And this was the reason I asked Mr. Materialscientist to not interfere in between. That MRRaja001 misused his ability to edit semi-protected pages into his favour and providing information from a single biased source and completely ignoring other authentic sources. That was the sole reason I opposed him but I do not know why you people supported him. Anjali00020010 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Conundrum
What are you thoughts on the addition of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" as source for a fringe theory? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive new editor
I have never done a WP:ANI notification before, so this is taking the 'skip the drama' option. New editor User:Bhinegar has been making a series of wild edits, mainly silly redirects of talk pages but also some vandalism. I have given three uw-disruptive warnings in short order, probably too close together for any effect but I believe the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Please advise? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- @John Maynard Friedman: sorry but I think it's time for ANI - maybe someone there will have a better solution than a block. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well I've been round here long enough, its time to bite the ANI bullet. Thanks. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- @John Maynard Friedman: The user created this ANI section. You could add any concerns there. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well I've been round here long enough, its time to bite the ANI bullet. Thanks. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
You flagged me as someone who expresses interest in "any gender-related dispute or controversy," for adding to the pages of LGBTQ rights leaders their appearances in a queer history podcast. Now every edit I post gets deleted. (Redacted) is offensive to not just myself, but to keeping Wikipedia and history accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaphena2010 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding a page
Hi Doug Weller , the same person who vandalised Tandava, Vayu and Rudra started vandalizing on page Narayana. This is one of his IP address. If possible can you add page protection to it. - MRRaja001 (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) If that is User:Anjali00020010, which seems likely, they should get an indefinite block on their registered account – they already had their temporary block extended for block evasion with a new account. @MRRaja001: I think it would be a good idea if you did not refer to their disruption as vandalism. They have a very strong point of view which they want the articles to reflect, but they don't seem to have the intention to harm Wikipedia. (After all, they were blocked for calling your edits vandalism, among other things. I'm not saying that you have behaved in a way that should lead to any sanctions against you, but it would be better if you did not call the other editor a vandal unless they do resort to blatant vandalism.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Bonadea: Please understand why i called his edits as a Vandalism. This person is deliberately editing and diverting the sole purpose of the project, Like in the case of the page Tandava, he has continuously removed the opinions and sayings of prominent scholars and authors and reverted back the content which doesn't have any citations or references. If we go through his contributions once, It is looking like he is editing the Wikipedia on a specific purpose. He is changing the content on articles according to his opinions and beliefs without providing proper citations and references, and also neutral point of view is missing here. This itself says that he had violated WP:PILLARS. Extract from WP:VD, " The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.". Hope i'm clear about this. - MRRaja001 (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Imre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emmerich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Revdel?
Hi Doug, I was wondering if you could take a look at these edits and determine if they need to be revdel'ed for slander against a living person, if it's not too much trouble. Thank you! Nanophosis (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Nanophosis: definitely, in fact I've suppressed them as potentially libelous so that only Oversighters can see them. Sorry I couldn't deal with this earler. Anything like this, it's probably faster to email Wikipedia:Oversight. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Edit warring and aspersions at The Exodus and elsewhere
Hi Doug, IZAK is edit warring at the Exodus and also making veiled accusations of antisemitism at other editors, see [2], [3], [4], and the aspersions [5]. See also this discussion. Thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Also, canvassing, see the links I've assembled [6], and [7].--Ermenrich (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Ermenrich: sorry, playing catchup. I'm involved in the article, ANI? Doug Weller talk 12:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Do you think that's warranted yet? I was sort of expecting him to keep on edit warring but he's stopped for the moment. I'm never sure at what point ANI is appropriate.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Ermenrich: if the editors he canvassed aren't either all the editors recently active on the article or include editors not recently active (including the talk page), definitely. I've warned him about the not-so-veiled accusations of anti-semitism. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Ermenrich: sorry, playing catchup. I'm involved in the article, ANI? Doug Weller talk 12:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020
Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020
- Library Card Platform
- New partnerships
- ProQuest
- Springer Nature
- BioOne
- CEEOL
- IWA Publishing
- ICE Publishing
- Bytes in brief
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Doug
- I added some content to some pages like Treaty of Amritsar and Kashmir conflict and Gilgit_Agency but Kautilya3 keeps on removing it even though it has all the references. What can I do. Johnleeds1 (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
No chance to respond, why?
Hi Doug Weller, I appreciate your concern, but at no time did you give me enough time to respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring, Aspersions and Canvassing by IZAK, in case you haven't seen it, I filled in my defense as follows: "@Ermenrich: (1) I have not been "edit warring" I made edits in good faith. At no time did I violate the WP:3RR, (2) and at no time did I call anyone an "antisemite". (3) User:Ermenrich displays an attitude of WP:OWN at The Exodus article,and my point was to introduce some Jewish studies content into the lead of the article, which he seems allergic to. (4) At no time have I violated WP:NPOV and WP:RS. (5) User:Ermenrich has an evident hostility to Rabbinic Judaism and marginalizes the Orthodox Judaism perspective." And, "@Zero0000: I was asking for help in editing an article which is permitted. It was not a AfD or CfD. It is not a violation of WP:CANVAS to ask other editors for their scholarly help. ". Thanks for lloking this over and please lift the block as I do not intend to edit The Exodus article in the near future. Regards, IZAK (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Kaveh Farrokh Page Edit(s)
Doug,
You said the following:
curprev 18:18, 11 June 2020 Doug Weller talk contribs 11,560 bytes -37 →top: this is not an article about his name, and he is not Persian undo
With reference to the edit below:
curprev 17:03, 11 June 2020 50.211.151.193 talk 11,597 bytes +7 Persian Nastaliq script used for Persian name. undo
You are incorrect to edit the page in such a manner provided that:
- The article edit had no impact on the Wikipedia page aside from script modification from Persian to Persian Nastaliq.
- The Kaveh Farrokh page is indeed not about a name, but must accurately portray the language of his namesake. Particularly, if he (Kaveh) is ok with the edits.
- You have also said that he is not Persian, however, as previously noted, the edit was concerning the language of the name "Kaveh Farrokh", which is indeed Persian.
Therefore, your edits must be reversed. You have previously noted that you know Dr. Kaveh Farrokh and if this is true, you may indeed ask him for additional verification. You may also visit his own homepage concerning his background and family ancestry at the following link: http://kavehfarrokh.com/about/background-ancestry/
Also, looking through your past comments, in 2013 you indicated that Dr. Kaveh Farrokh cannot be regarded as an academic or historian. Please note the following:
- Given that he has earned a doctorate, he certainly can be regarded as an academic, even if he is not a full-time career academic. This is partly due to the fact that his work is regularly published in peer-reviewed academic journals.
- Dr. Farrokh does also maintain a role at the following: http://www.methodologica.fr/dept-sciences-historiques-membres-an.htm This is an educational institution and does also clearly indicate that Dr. Kaveh Farrokh is a Professor and Researcher.
- You may additionally reference Dr. Kaveh Farrokh's website http://kavehfarrokh.com/about/teaching-history/ regarding his previous teaching positions as a Lecturer and a Reader at the University of British Columbia (2004 - 2018).
Considering the above, would this suffice to fulfill the premise that he is or has been a career academic and/or historian? It seems that you have indeed been incorrect, particularly considering that a well-known Canadian university acknowledges that Dr. Farrokh has taught at their university for over a decade.
On a beneficial side note, your own Everipedia page (https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/doug-weller) indicates your Master of Science degree as "MsC". This must be adjusted to MSc, M.Sc., or MSc. as commonly indicated by graduates that have received such qualifications from British institutions.
Please be more attentive to accuracy and details provided your editorial role.
I am awaiting your response regarding the Kaveh Farrokh page.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagusMoon (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no requirement to translate his name - can you find such a guideline? I'm not editing at Everipedia, it's an insignificant website. This odd French university puzzles me, and the journal it mentions doesn't seem to have received any coverage. I see that you are failing to accept [[WP:AGF|that my edits are made in good faith, which is disappointing. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
fyi
PLS SEE Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Introduction page.--Moxy 🍁 11:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Antifa
I found this really informative and interesting. For one, the far-left simply is not like the far-right which has a literature and clear consensus on what it is and represents. I think seeing the far-left as revolutionary left is one way too see it, although I am not fully convinced for why being a revolutionary per se make one or something more left-wing. There are indeed left-wing traditions that are revolutionaries and more left-wing than others, but it is not revolutionarism that make one more left-wing per se, see for example Blanquism and Leninism. While they may be considered as more left-wing because they want more fast and radical changes in society, it could also be argued that they are to the right of more evolutionist left-wing currents and traditions because vanguardism is elitist and right-wing, basically pursuing left-wing ideals through right-wing means. I do agree that it makes no sense to call communists or/and other socialists that are part of the democratic process and work within it as far-left.
I would consider anarchism, which include both revolutionary and evolutionist tendencies, as the more left because it represents left-wing politics (as we define it on Wikipedia according to sources) taken to their logic conclusions, just like fascism represents right-wing politics (as we define it on Wikipedia according to sources) taken to their logical conclusions. So I would prefer this to a revolutionary/radical–reactionary/traditionalism political spectrum where fascism may be considered to overlap on all four elements while still representing the right. Yet, I would not consider labeling anarchism far-left per se; I believe subscribing to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism
is a perfectly fine wording, for the far-left simply is not the equivalent of the far-right and is much more ambiguous and unclear.
There are currents such as council communism or left communism which are considered as representing the left of communism and Marxism, but I still believe far-left is not a clear label. I am not even sure communism was ever really considered far-left, excluding anti-communists and right-wingers, for it simply took liberalism's place on the left (representing a left-wing critique of both philosophical liberalism and actual existing liberalism) and can only be considered far-left if liberalism is still considered on the left. Anarchism, communism and socialism are certainly on the left in a normal political spectrum. A spectrum where post-war consensus social democrats are considered far-left or radicals, with neoliberals in the centre/centre-left, is one so far skewed to the right that is why it becomes common to label parts of the centre as far-left.
I wrote this before reading Beyond My Ken's response here and I am writing you here because I do not want to go off-topic, but I just wanted to let you know that would be an interesting discussion to have and I am glad you decided to open it up.--Davide King (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with Antifa per se, but the basic typology of political economy goes as follows: Left (communism, anarchism), Moderate Left (social-democracy), Moderate Right (reform liberalism), Right (classical liberalism). While the far left (adventurism) tends to be at the far-end of the Left in the typology, the far right (opportunism), as an ideology, tends to be at its centre. It's important to distinguish between political affinity and antipathy of any given ideology to the underlying political-economic policy it seeks to advance. El_C 11:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Re: June 2020
Hello Admin Doug, I saw your reverting on the Falun Gong article and your warning. I do not think they were correct, but did not want to reply yesterday, as I feel details in terms of how Bloodofox's and HorseEyeJack's edits were against multiple policies: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:Due, etc, were presented in:
- ANER my response to HorseEyeJack's complain
- RSN my response to Bloodofox's complain
- my response on the article talk page to HorseEyeJack's reverting
- HorseEyeJack talk page in response to HorseEyeJack's attack.
But today I saw HorseEyeJack is attacking me again on the article talk page, I feel I need to further make things clear. In response to your words:
That removed a lot of well-sourced material, replaced unsourced material with a cn tag (which is strictly against policy), etc - far too drastic especially given the talk page discussions which involved more than one person.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Falun Gong. You've had too many warnings in the past over different issues. Thus the final warning. Note that I will not block you myself as I've reverted you and am thus involved. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I would like to say a few words below:
- 1. My issues raised in my edit summary was not addressed in your words.
The page is also under WP:discretionary sanctions. WP:ARBFLG shows activists tried to promote their views here. The significant change made to the relative stable article in the May by one user had no discussion consensus. Since then the article has been no stable. I am restoring back to the status prior to the change in May.
- 2. I had no intention "replaced unsourced material with a cn tag" at all. I have idea what a cn tag is. I believe, if that is your true concern, it can be easily fixed.
- 3. I did not blank page content. The template removal was not intentional. My point was that the edit Bloodofox made in the mid May was prior to his any discussion. He should have convinced others first before making the huge change. My restoring to the status prior to his edit was meant to be fair. If a huge requires a discussion, I should start from prior to the change.
- 4. Recently Bloodofox added the 1st section after the lead section. This is without discussion either. I tried to move it the Falun Gong Outside China section because the previous 1st section was about the origin of Falun Gong, and the topic of these new groups that were formed by overseas Falun Gong adherents reasonably belongs to the Falun Gong Outside China section, but Bloodofox reverted.
- 5. In this new first section, some paragraphs were directly copied from Los Angeles Magazine's City Think Blog, for example the paragraph "In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle.." was directly copied from the source. Was it not allowed in Wikipedia? In addition, such contents are directly contradictory to other sources, like NBC, etc., as I pinpointed on RSN response earlier.
- 6. I added sourced materials a few days ago, but HorseEyeJack frequectly reverted.
- 7. Yes, I received warnings in the past. My impression is that most warnings were not factual and were from activists who promoted their views with original research on related pages, i tried to prevent them and were threatened by warning. At least two of them were banned on the topic later. I mentioned this in the ANER comment. Precious Stone 18:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)