User talk:Bailong52

very happy!!!

Very pleased to be a member of wiki, wiki I will make efforts for development.Bailong52 (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to Li Hongzhi, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Homunculus (duihua) 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, I will come correct.Bailong52 (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Li Hongzhi. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Li Hongzhi was changed by Bailong52 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.916724 on 2011-10-21T02:55:40+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a personal publication by Li Hongzhi said in a clear, why not say so.Bailong52 (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed

As Li made these articles as believings for his followers , especially in his several essays that publicated, you could check all these sentences in his essays or speeches,so can you give me a solid reason as to rejection of my edits. Bailong52 (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Li has written many things, of which the two topics you chose to highlight are quite marginal. Wikipedia is not intended to be an indiscriminate collection of information or primary source quotations, and neither is it a platform to disparage another person in order to promote a particular point of view. I suggest you take a look at this page for guidelines on what to avoid in editing wikipedia.Homunculus (duihua) 04:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Falun Gong, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thank you!Bailong52 (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding poorly sourced or unsourced material to pages related to Falun Gong. Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable and of a neutral point of view. You contributions are, unfortunately, not only incomprehensible, but are not supported by reliable sources (see WP:RS). Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 06:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with your editing, some of which have been mentioned above. You have been told, for example, of the need for reliable sources. We cannot accept statements, especially potentially controversial statements, simply on the basis that an anonymous person posts them on Wikipedia without providing any evidence to support them. Much of your editing seems as though it may be intended to support a particular point of view, which is contrary to the policy that articles must be written from a neutral point of view. You have repeatedly posted the same material to an article several times, without explaining why, even when several different editors have removed the material. That is not how we work on Wikipedia: if we find that others disagree with what we have done we do not keep posting the same material over and over again, but rather we discuss the material, to try to reach agreement as to what is suitable. Continuing to post the same material in this way is known as edit warring, and anyone who continues to do it after being warned may be blocked from editing to stop them from doing so. However, by far the biggest problem with your editing seems to be that you cannot write English. You use English words, but put them together in ways that are not English. Some of what you have written is so unlike English that I cannot understand what you were trying to say at all. There is other stuff which I can more or less understand, but which would need a good deal of rewriting to bring it to the level of competence in English that is needed for an encyclopaedia article. Perhaps you would be better off contributing to a Wikipedia in another language, such as one of teh Chinese Wikipedias, here or here. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falun Gong’s Theory on Male-Female Dual Cultivation.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]