User talk:Unicornblood2018
August 2018
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Lin Zexu has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Lin Zexu was changed by Unicornblood2018 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.94982 on 2018-08-26T03:30:23+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Unicornblood2018, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Unicornblood2018! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC) |
Friendly Notice
[edit]Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Leugen9001 (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Intro for Falun gong seems poor and why can't I edit?
[edit]Wikipedia is first about the truth. And not about merely repeating what one party tells others to write about them.
What I mean by we can all agree that Falun Gong members commonly tell others that the Chinese government banned Falun Gong because Li had more followers than the Communist party (100 million compared with 60-70 million).
But that is unlikely for two reasons.
First, scholars agree that the number of Falun Gong adherents was between 2 to 10 million, not 100 million (see Bruseker, 2000). Second, there were equally popular Qi Gong groups in China which were not banned.
Yet on the very intro of wiki, it reiterate that common "quoted" claim by stating that the government banned them because they were jealous of their size and spirituality.
What it didn't say was that Falun gong members had infiltrated the Communist party to overthrow the government.
That issue is not disputed.
Nor did it mention that Li had made teaching to encourage others to avoid modern medicine which was irresponsible and wrong,and the government had a good reason to criticise him for that.
For the record, even after he was banned. He continued to keep writing that "illnesses are caused by karma, and that by taking medicines or getting medical help one presses the karma back into the body. The sign of a true practitioner is to refuse medicine or medical care"
Sources are below and are from his official publications.
(Li, 1998b; 1998c; 1999; 2001a; 2003b).
That is also not disputed. I can go on about about other reason.
All these reasons were why Li was banned from China yet despite being decent strong reasons behind his ban, with a lot of reliable sources to back them.
The intro just claims that the banning "only" reasons was that China was jealous of their size and independance. I find that to be suspiciously inhibited from giving the chinese government a gift of the truth and not willing to be neutral.
_____________
Note ~ I was going to add this to the "poltical inhibition discussion" but i think I may have been blocked. If there is a dispute against me, I would want to hear reasons and be inclined to resolving it civilly. And always open to sincere critical feedback. Unicornblood2018 (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Also I'm fully and painfully aware that many of my writings are long and messy and even repeats itself sometimes. I'm not usually like that. But I received an email a few nights ago from wiki and during the past few days have been travelling long distances on a train back and forth with barely food and sleep for that past days. Typing while bored and hungry on a long ass train ride using an old phone is not the best way to contribute to wiki. Not a great excuse but I would try to in the future, use an actual desktop computer plus word processor inside a house to write future writings. I promise you will see a vast improvement from my earliest writings. Unicornblood2018 (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello! Nobody right now is making an accusation of malicious behaviour against you. I took this to the NPOV Noticeboard only in order to see what the community thought. I'll try to ensure fairness for all sides. --Leugen9001 (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- There is no rule saying that negative information about Falun Gong cannot be added. It's just that because of the controversial nature of the topic, I think that it might be wise to try to seek consensus before making big changes.--Leugen9001 (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
April 2019
[edit]
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody's going to delete the talkpage, and the histories are required to be kept to satisfy Wikipedia's copyright scheme. However, article talkpages aren't soapboxes for pro or con views, and the FG talkpage has seen significant recent disruption by editors who seem to believe that Wikipedia is a platform for advocacy. Please stick to specific discussions involving measures to improve the article, using reliable sources. Denuncations and complaints about an article subject are not appropriate on any talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- mate, I was getting to that. You deleted me waay too quickly. LESS THAN 2 MINUTES AFTER I ADDED THE FIRST SET OF PARAGRAPHS. I was going to add that the portal should not be deleted similarly to the talk page. By making a point that this talk page showed what needs to be changed. And the portal here is the first thing that needs to be changed and is incredibly important as it allows awareness and context to be accessed easily.
The portal is important as it allows unfamiliar editors a quick study of Falun Gong. And the talk page can make sure the true background is written on it.
That was my entire argument on why the portal shouldn't be deleted and also why the talk page must be protected. Unicornblood2018 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Once again, talkpages aren't for advocacy or presentation of personal views. Abuse of talkpages in that manner is disruptive and can lead to editing restrictions, and there has been an editor posting walls of text consisting of their personal views, who has been disruptive. There are plenty of other places on the internet for complaints and advocacy. Separately, the portal business involves a widespread debate about all portals, not just this subject. Acroterion (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Really? Read TheBlueCanoe rationale for censoring information on the talk labelled "Considerations for lede section"..it consists of nothing but own personal views and claiming subtle gaslighting statements that only the ccp ever calls it a cult and secretly does not believe it is a cult. How else am i supposed to say he is distorting facts in order to justify censoring.
Me saying that is wrong, and explaining that the government gave clear information criticising Li claims on aliens etc, is sufficient enough to describe and prove they undeniably see it as a cult. After Li got kicked out of china, he continued to talk about aliens in the west. He described one of the aliens looking just like a human but a nose made of bone.
And look at Marvin 2009. He uses tactics that are simply wrong. He removed an entire paragraph with a reasoning that's very weak at best. And does not justify removing the entire body.
Li claiming to have supernatural powers and teach it to other people.. Is a pretty standard recognised hallmark of a typical cult. If you need a source to also tell you that a person claiming to be a God with superpowers and that person convincing people to believe him, is a cult. That's unnecessary and simply creating artificial barriers which i called it out. That's all.
How else does one ever tell him that he is undermining the page by deleting real information with an exploitive excuse.
Those are just 2. There are a long history that span back years of censoring with bad excuses. And how does one fix that, exactly?
Unicornblood2018 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Falun Gong, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Don't post advocacy: stick to concrete suggestions for article improvement, backed up by sourcing. Your dislike of the organization isn't a free pass to post extensive personal analysis. Attacking other editors is a fast road to loss of editing privileges. Removal of personal views and soapboxing is not censorship - talkpages are only for specific suggestions concerning article improvement. Wikipedia isn't an outlet for free speech, it's an encyclopedia.I suggest that you read WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:FREESPEECH. Acroterion (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Read other opposing editors's input. It is nothing but soapboxing and personal attacks on China government despite the issue should ONLY be more on whether the information are indeed facts and not about politics which is my biggest point.
Removal of personal views and soapboxing is not censorship
Those are not personal views. For one. They are backed by literally Li himself, writing papers in the west that explained why modern medicine was actually destroying people rather than helping them. And a true practitioner will abstain from modern medicine.
Ironically Those are personal views of Li and neither me or the one who inpputed that info, would make that our own personal views.. It was simply li's personal views documented into Wikipedia that was removed using a beuacratic invalid excuse by Marvin 2005. I protested that censoring to protect the page from inappropriate censoring. And improve it to be an article where information is not hidden via personal bias.
Judge for yourself
And they aren't strictly a personal analysis within a bubble. Saying that it was wrong for Li to claim he was chosen by an immortal and trained with them in his youth. To master supernatural powers and actually promise others he can teach them to do the same.
And call that dishonest is being an editor with morals who refuses to lie and hide li's dishonesty via lies of ommission. I am not advocating that we call Li as dishonest. I am advocating the reason not to censor his clearly dishonest background because he shouldn't be protected by editors who simply are using the talk box to distort information. And they get away with it using logical fallacies and agended comments.
For example, one of the first replies i got were blue canoe who stated
"Given how prolific Li is in his writings and public lectures, we could never hope to describe everything he has ever written." TheBlueCanoe 00:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
That does not mean we become deprived of our freedom of speech to state that Li talked about evil aliens who landed their spaceships on our planet a century ago in his Time interview and about 2 billion year old nuclear reactors in Africa, that he was chosen by an immortal being who taught him supernatural powers, like telepathy etc . And most importantly Li did in fact publish papers whilst in America about advocating against modern medicine in favor for his teachings instead. Heather Kavan outlined the sources and they were both written and published by Li himself without any doubts.
If those facts are correct.. You are depriving freedom of speech on me to advocate that we simply should not censor that information. And editors calling me blatant accusations of ccp apologist does not give them the right to bully me on asking them why censoring real information that is both significant and relevant.. They have only used political hate motivations to justify it.
Unicornblood2018 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Notice
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Falun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
You may actually succeed in deleting me completely and banning me. Because I am relatively a nube when it comes to Wikipedia beuacracy.. And they delete me because i was unaware of a trivial rule. But I have nothing that I feel guilty for.. I bought awareness to people using inappropriate reasons on censoring information.
I properly explained why falun gong is a cult and never truly advocated on ever calling it a cult on the actual wiki article..
But simply for other editors like blue canoe, Marvin 2005, etc to not to censor the evidence and information that proves it is a cult. As the reasons given to censor them was not at all justifiable.
That's my freedom of speech. As this is a large topic, i may have excessively talked too much but none of what i wrote, makes me feel like I am cheating Wikipedia.. I want to help Wikipedia.
And even if the board cherrypick on small reasons to ban me. I am emboldened by the fact that you can delete information about fg from Wikipedia but not forever from the outside western world.
Li claimed he was chosen by an immortal at age 12 quoted by Western journalism. Li wrote papers advocating against modern medicine that were published in America.. You can't hide real facts forever ~ A man who claims to have superpowers and can teach it to others, is a liar. And no decent board would object to me bringing light to true information and use convenient excuses to rid my freedom of speech. That's what i believe wholly. Unicornblood2018 (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to help Wikipedia, bring authoritative sources, and leave your own opinions out of it. Stop posting walls of text about what you think, stop accusing other editors of censorship, and abide by WIkipedia's policies on reliable sourcing, no original research, neutral point of view and [[WP:V|verifiability. Everything must be sourced to reliable published sources. Talkpages aren't fora for opinions, and Wikipedia isn't a forum for personal expression or for free speech. You are expected to listen to other editors and to abide by site policies. Clogging up talkpages with walls of text containing no sources and a lot of opinions obstructs the work of the encyclopedia. If you can't abide by those policies, there are plenty of other places on the internet to make your case. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- But I already gave my sources last year in Full and with in depth explanation. In the top chapter that is now been just moved to another place by a bot, effectively hiding it from public awareness. 🤨
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_41
I already stated Heather Kavan journalistic piece who personally read and Cited Li's work.
"He teaches that illnesses are caused by karma, and that by taking medicines or getting medical help one presses the karma back into the body. The sign of a true practitioner is to refuse medicine or medical care (Li, 1998b; 1998c; 1999; 2001a; 2003b)."
Falun Gong in the media: What can we believe?
Heather Kavan Massey University ANZCA08 Conference, Power and Place, Wellington, July 2008
Unicornblood2018 (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Sources
Li, H. (1997). Falun Dafa: Lectures in the United States, pre-publishing version. Retrieved March 26, 2001, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/mgjf.htm
Li, H. (1998b). Essentials for further advancement: A Falun Gong practitioner’s guide. Retrieved Feb. 1, 2006, from http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz.htm
Li, H. (1998c). Falun Buddha Fa: Lecture at the first conference in North America, March 29-30, New York. Retrieved March 26, 2001, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/north- america.htm
Li, H. (1999). Falun Dafa lecture in Sydney. Retrieved April 7, 2005, from http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/xnjf1.htm
Li, H. (2001a). Falun Gong: Principles and exercises for perfect health and enlightenment. MA: Fair Winds Press.
Li, H. (2002). Touring North America to teach the Fa, March. Retrieved Feb. 12, 2005, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/na_lecture_tour.htm
Li, H. (2003a). Teaching the Fa during the 2003 Lantern festival, Feb. 15. Retrieved June 3, 2005, from http://www.faluncanada.net/library/english/ la2003/la2003_e.doc
Li, H. (2003b). Zhuan Falun: Turning the law wheel. Taiwan: Yih Chyun Corp.
- Source of excerpt written by Heather Kavan can be currently downloaded as pdf from the Massey University link below.
Unicornblood2018 (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- hey mate, you gave me the wrong page. The page you gave me os a case that was a decade ago. Please send me the correct link.
You gave me this link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong
IT is Incorrect. Case Opened on 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Case Closed on 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Give me my case url. If its a real case then i want to know it Acroterion
Unicornblood2018 (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
ANI
[edit] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Acroterion (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
April 2019
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Man, this unblock process is really complex. From my understanding now, I'm allowed to ping a user and request clarification before unblock request. And not ask any questions on unblock request hence this new edit. forgive me, I'm not deliberately dissing the process but just new to this code stuff and strict wiki protocols 🙈
Care to first be specific about a "battleground" case against me?
If there is one or 2 trivial amounts that are put on me by opportunistic editors who hate that i tell it as it is. Then i won't apologise. Because i am wronged.
But if you can show me where i clearly crossed the line specifically. I will apologise. I'm not unreasonable.
However I've been constantly smeared ccp apologist by others, why are they not banned😅 regardless i only want to know my battleground arguments used to ban me.
Me saying its wrong to censor information and giving sufficient reasoning, is not a battle ground.
Having others attack me first and then me reminding them that blatant accusations and questions of motives can go both ways, is not a battle ground.
Finding and pointing out flaws in logic is not a battle ground.
Telling people that they shouldn't delete information out of political biase and invalid reasoning however is a battle ground. But within reason. Trivial.
But maybe i missed something and deserved my ban fully.
Regardless please elaborate on the SPECIFICS please. And i will apologise to the offended if i believe i crossed the line. and if you have fair and civillised suggestions for me that you want me to follow to lift the ban, i would of course consider it
~~
As for mooning the jury.. I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia editor etiquette. Just a farm boy from Campbeltown Australia.. I'm still learning the ropes on Wikipedia so cut me some slack..
I had notifications. Saw a discussion page and treated it like one. I wasn't aware that there's a rule you're not supposed to treat it as a discussion page discussing my details if being reported. It's not like there were a warning nor something to tell me that i'm Not supposed to contribute.
So banning me because of my unfamiliarity of your customs is not the same as banning me for deliberately mooning the jury..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Acroterion#/talk/96
I did indeed misread my arbitration notice given to me earlier that day. And I believed i had an arbitration case against me.. So i assumed everyone gets the same right to represent themselves.. 🤨 Regardless I wasn't trying to be a pompous ass and disrespecting other people with snarky attitude behind their back. That was actually my piece only for the arbitration committee that i was expecting. It was a misunderstanding that I admit responsibility for and apologise for writing it on the ANI board.
Unicornblood2018 (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- You need to re-read that arbitration notice again - it doesn't tell you that there's a case against you, but that the area you're editing is subject to sanctions, which may be enforced as a result of that arbitration case. Acroterion (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- so basically was there an actual report against me😕, if not, why input it? Marvin 2009 blatantly called me a ccp apologist. That was uncalled for and i was upset that you deleted my reply to him. But left his alone despite he disparaged me and mocked my integrity.
Unicornblood2018 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- <moved from the top of the page>Correction
.. I was specifically TOLD by Administrator Who reported me it was a talk page with arbitration where I ASSUMED people all get to represent themselves. Is this not an arbitration where i'm Supposed to tell my side like everyone else? .
Because that was what the user explicitly told me. That i had an arbitration case against me..
That is misleading to tell me i have an arbitration case open if this isn't one 🤨
- No, I told you that if you had a complaint about my actions to take it to ANI, not to arbitration. Your response on my talkpage convinced me that others needed to look at your conduct, so I brought it up at ANI. Your response there, continuing the behavior for which I warned you, resulted in your block. At least you've confirmed that the IP from Victoria was you. Acroterion (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- lol well that's a surprise. I didn't know there was a campbelltown in Victoria until i looked it up. Nah man, Campbeltown, Sydney Australia and i never once denied my country nor background. I just got tired of the trivial fuss over "anonymous" ip address. News flash, we are all anonymous. I dom't know your first name nor the Japanese guy blocking me rn. I don't see the big deal behind the stigma of unregistered ip user.. Honestly i travel all the time so i rarely get the same ip address for very long so maybe i get the stigma. Tho Virtually anyone can make many email accounts. For all i know, you could have 6 wiki accounts. And i meant that as a friendly joke. Not as an attack 😜😂
Unicornblood2018 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Understood. It's best practice to log in - the use of pseudonyms can be confusing, as can IPs. That wasn't really a major issue, it was tolerably obvious. And yes, there's a NSW Campbelltown, I meant to refer to that one - the IP lookup gives NSW. Acroterion (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
April 2019
[edit]
Unicornblood2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #24998 was submitted on Apr 30, 2019 08:01:01. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Unicornblood2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #25016 was submitted on May 01, 2019 02:29:06. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Unicornblood2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #25024 was submitted on May 02, 2019 03:53:48. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Noting that I blocked this user blockl-evading at User:175.36.91.0 per an AN report. Sandstein 20:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- And I removed talkpage access after more rants of the kind that appeared here before talkpage access was revoked. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Unicornblood2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #25226 was submitted on May 16, 2019 09:53:14. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've removed voluminous soapboxing of the kind posted to the FG talkpage by this editor - user talkpages aren't alternate hosts for arguments that aren't countenanced at article talkpages. Administrators should also note that this user was warned about discretionary sanctions affecting Falun Gong-related gtopics, and ignored them. Since they're indefinitely blocked, there's no point in imposing a formal topic ban, but it should be a condition of any unblock, and continued sockpuppetry on that topic should be considered a topic ban violation, apart from block evasion. Acroterion (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Unicornblood2018 unblocked following successful appeal
[edit]Following a successful appeal via email to the Arbitration Committee, Unicornblood2018 has been unblocked, with the condition that they are topic-banned from any pages or edits related to (1) China, or (2) new religious movements, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed. The account restriction has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee.
For the Arbitration Committee,
GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Unicornblood2018 unblocked following successful appeal
Topic ban appeal
[edit]I saw your self-reverted post at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (WP:ARCA) about appealing your topic ban and thought I'd offer some friendly advice. I'm not involved with deciding any appeal, but as a former arbitrator I've read more than a few and so have some idea of what works and what doesn't.
Firstly, WP:ARCA is the correct place to make an appeal, but you should use the "Click here to file a request for amendment" link in the pink box at the top of the page and fill in the requested information there. This makes it easy for everyone to quickly find what it is you are appealing and (re)familiarise themselves with your situation. It's been over 18 months since the topic ban was imposed with appeals allowed after one year, so there is no issue with that.
Secondly, your appeal is much too long and focuses on the wrong things. Keep it short and to the point - arbitrators have to do a lot of reading and so will be inclined to skim read or just skip over anything that is or appears to be long and waffley, which will not help your chances. Don't explain the whole background, just provide a link so that anyone who wants to know can read it in context.
In terms of subject matter, sanctions on Wikipedia are intended to be preventative, not punitive, so in order for the topic ban to be listed you need to convince the arbitrators that it will not lead to problems going forward. Whether the topic ban or block was correct at the time is now irrelevant, so you need to make it clear that regardless of whether it was or wasn't right it isn't needed now. The appeal you wrote today doesn't do that, indeed it gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you want permission to go back doing exactly what it was that got you sanctioned in the first place and there is no way that request would be granted. Instead you need to show you understand why the topic ban was imposed and that you understand not to repeat it.
Many arbitrators and others are often reluctant to grant an appeal of a topic ban without evidence that the person appealing knows how to contribute in a constructive manner generally. By far and away the best way to do this is to have a good body of positive contributions, spanning several months, in topic areas far removed from anything to do with your topic ban. You have not edited at all since your unblock, which reinforces the impression that you just want to continue where you left off, and gives no evidence that you know how to contribute without causing issues.
All together this means that it is unlikely any appeal you made today would be successful unfortunately. I suggest you pick some other topic areas, unrelated to China or new religious movements, that interest you and spend a few months doing productive work there before considering a new appeal. Sorry this is unlikely what you wanted to hear, but I hope it has nevertheless been helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Amendment request: Unicornblood2018 (declined)
[edit]The amendment request that you filed, Amendment request: Unicornblood2018 (September 2021), has been officially declined by the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's okay. Thanks for at least taking the time to review and discuss it. Even if you guys had unblocked me. To be honest, I don't know if I would be a very active editor here. Falun Gong was more than enough drama for me so don't think Wikipedia is the place for me. If you look at https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falun_Gong and the current wiki article. They are so very different. One is more censored and the other one bares all the facts that certain people do not want the public to know. [1]
The truth is after I got blocked, I left Wikipedia with a strong feeling of disgust because I wanted to simply add in the fact that Falun Gong taught about aliens wanting to take over humanity via introduced modern technology, race mixing etc and more. Others emotionally hated it as it made FG look like it had crazy cult like teachings but that's because it really did and they were too politically involved to allow that info in. And I wasn't going to censor myself in not adding that in. I have believed my initial punishment was not only excessive but designed to keep me away from adding real info. So I lost faith in Wikipedia and had no intentions to come back. https://eprints.usq.edu.au/27131/
Despite I had plenty of sources to back me up yet my edits kept being reverted everytime I tried to add it in. But they cannot also delete my sources and I knew eventually someone will succeed in adding that info to wiki in the end. I was right about that.
He's controversial for his personal beliefs, which are homophobic, racist, and anti-science. Didn't the founder of Falun Gong say something about aliens awhile back? Yes. Li outlined some of his more eyebrow-raising beliefs in an interview with Time magazine in 1992. He said that David Copperfield can really levitate off the ground, that qigong can cure illness, and that aliens introduce science in the world so that they could use human bodies.
https://www.insider.com/shen-yun-show-falun-gong-2019-3
I am grateful to see that recent western media aka the 2020 report by the Los Angeles magazine, has mentioned what I have been saying all along about Falun Gong - like aliens, anti-science views, etc and it's now FINALLY added to the wiki article. So am happy with that at least and that readers now have a chance to be aware of what I already known intimately 3 years ago :) Unicornblood2018 (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)