Bobby fletcher

Are those sites on the main Falun Gong page? Jsw663 04:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the pointer and info. This is certainly useful! Jsw663 10:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please, no editing of user pages without the user's express authorization. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsw663 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/international/asia/17china.html?pagewanted=1 this is the report. I think you ought to read the whole thing. It's quite detailed, and I think that this kind of information may assist you to make more informed decisions about your stance toward certain political entities.--Asdfg12345 00:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have only expressed opinion about one political entity - Falun Gong. I'm sorry this report is unrelated to my research on Falun Gong's live organ harvesting allegation.

Based on the fact you have maliciousely 'blanked' and altered my edit, I recommend you examine your own behavior in attacking other editors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting#Disputing_Asdfg12345.27s_alteration_of_other.27s_edits_to_lead_section].

Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Did you read the article? I would like to hear your thoughts about it. PS: You are right that I should examine my own conduct and attitude. That is very true, and thank you for reminding me. Sometimes I become annoyed with the way you present your arguments. On the other hand, I think it will be fine if you simply add information that can be used for the articles to the talk pages, with a very short, bland note. Please let me know what you think about the Shanwei Massacre.--Asdfg12345 16:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I want to know if you have read that NYT article on the Shanwei massacre. Please tell me if you have or have not read it, and if you have not, please find some time to take a look.--Asdfg12345 01:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

1) You mean the police responded after the villagers threw molotov cocktails at the police? Here's a report from NPR to that fact:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5056500

"KUHN: A man who answered Jung Guanzhee's home phone in Dongzhou confirmed ... only when attacked by spear-wielding Molotov cocktail-hurling townspeople."

2) Here are more facts of the case:

http://www.baidu.com/s?wd=%FCS%CF%A3%D7%8C&cl=3

http://www.google.com/search?q=%E9%BB%83%E5%B8%8C%E8%AE%93

-the armed police did not show up until the mob attacked the unarmed civilian police

-the mob destroyed a transformer

-the mob trapped the unarmed poice

-the mob leader Huang threaten to "raze the building" where the police were trapped in

-the wind farm in the next village that was damaged had no land acquisation issue

3) The NYT article is incorrect on the compensation amount. It is not a one time payment; all compensations total RMB$12,000,000 per year for about 1500 families, not 30,000 people.

4)Is it human rights to attack police with molotov cocktail? We Americans don't have such rights, why shoud it be any different in China? Rule of law means when the police makes an order, we go home and go to court the next day to find out if it was right. Why should it be any differernt in China?

Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

What about where the police would shoot and injure a villager, then walk to them and shoot them again at close range? Do you have a problem with that?--Asdfg12345 19:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

May I also ask whether you have lived in mainland China? I would like to understand what you think about these cases like how Hu Jia's lawyer was arrested, and Hu Jia was arrested, and his wife locked in her house, and their laptop, cel. phone confiscated? Do you acknowledge that the CCP is violating the basic human rights of many of its citizens for the purpose of maintaining political power? --Asdfg12345 23:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not from Mainland China, nor have I ever been a citizen of the PRC. I have no connection with the Chinese government, as most Americans do not. If you are into Truthfullness, then take a look at the balanced reporting of China.

I have answered many of your question. Can you answer my questions? Is it human rights to throw molotov cocktail at unarmed police?

Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of course not. It's wrong. Using violence against violence is what people do and have done since always, with few exceptions. I can see how you will be against this, but if you are against violence--ie, the villagers throwing the molotov cocktails--aren't you also against the police shooting the villagers from far away then killing them at close range? And all the other things like torturing dissidents and beating them? Just for speaking against the govt.?--Asdfg12345 16:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-3-2/38865.html this might be interesting for you. It's a letter by Gao Zhisheng about Hu Jia's disappearance. What do you think?--Asdfg12345 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here's another letter, this is from Guo Feixiong's wife: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-1-21/64409.html. He isn't guilty of any wrongdoing, but his speaking up for the oppressed is inconvenient for the ruling Party, so they torture him and lock him up. Aren't you disgusted by this?--Asdfg12345 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any non-Epoch Times link? Epoch Times, I quote, is "piss poor" as reliable source and you have not responded to my debate on reliability of Epoch Times (you archived the discussion, quite dishonestly IMHO.)

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

But these are open letters, it is just that they have been published in Epoch Times and that's where I saw them. They could have been published anywhere. Epoch Times doesn't have much to do with this. C'mon, that's obvious. I don't know what there is to debate about the reliability of the Epoch Times. I would treat it in the same way as any other primary source for these Falun Gong articles.--Asdfg12345 22:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have you seen them anywhere else? Like major media? I'll ask you again - Do you have any non-Epoch Times link? Epoch Times, I quote, is "piss poor" as reliable source and you have not responded to my debate on reliability of Epoch Times (you archived the discussion, quite dishonestly IMHO.)

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm asking you direct and simple questions about your view on basic violations of human rights by the CCP. Why are you avoiding it?--Asdfg12345 13:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm asking you a direct, simple, and easily verifiable question weither you have non-Epoch Times link. Why are you avoiding it? I believe I have answered your question in good faith; it is time for you to act truthfully and in kind. Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure, there's plenty. I will even copy you the text of Guo Feixiong's wife's open letter here, I found this on a non epoch times site: http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2008/report2008-01/GuoFXwife080120BushGletterA331-W175.htm:

郭飞雄妻子张青致美国总统布什先生的公开信

注：郭飞雄先生为魏京生基金会2006年第三届“魏京生中国民主斗士奖”得主。请大家关注他的遭遇，并对他及家人提供道义及其它方面的同情与帮助。

尊敬的总统先生：

您好！

我是中国公民张青。我今天给您写这封信是希望您能伸出援手，援救我的丈夫郭飞雄。

郭飞雄曾是二00六年五月您预定要接见的中国民间人权活动人士之一。在二00六年的四月底，郭飞雄应邀到美国参加一个主题为《宗教信仰与法治》的研讨会。在会议结束后的五月十一日，您在白宫接见了从中国前来参加研讨会的三位人士，我丈夫却因非他个人能控制的原因，没有能参加您在白宫举行的与中国民间人权活动人士的会见。虽然他没能参加这次会见，但他非常赞赏您的这一有著特殊意义的举动，他说，这是美国政府对中国民间人权活动的认同和支持。

郭飞雄是中国活跃的人权人士，曾参与多起中国著名的维权事件，例如太石村农民罢免事件，发起并组织营救维权律师高智晟的声援活动等。为此，他屡遭打压，多次入狱。

二00六年九月十四日，郭飞雄又被捕入狱。政府罗织罪名指控他“非法经营”，说他出版了一本揭露中国政坛腐败的杂志《沈阳政坛地震》。早在二00一年，官方就以这个指控罚款郭飞雄十万元。现在，司法当局又搬出这个莫须有的罪名拘捕了郭飞雄。

在广州第一看守所拘留期间，郭飞雄被连续审讯十三个日夜，被强迫不准睡觉；被手脚穿插、全身弯曲地固定铐在木板床上达四十二天；被戴脚镣一百多天。

最残酷的是，二00七年一月二十日，广州司法当局把我丈夫转押到中国东北城市沈阳。沈阳警方把郭飞雄与死刑犯关押在一起，并对他施行了更加惨无人道的酷刑。

二00七年二月十二日，沈阳警方办案人给郭飞雄戴上黑头套，押到秘密地点暴打；反吊我丈夫的双手长时间悬吊在空中；用高压电棒电击他的生殖器。二月十三日，郭飞雄不堪电击生殖器的极度痛苦和羞辱，奋力撞向玻璃，但求一死了之。三月十九日，他们再次用电警棍电击郭飞雄生殖器，达五、六分钟之久。

二00七年十一月十四日，司法当局在没有有效物证的情况下，以用高压电警棍电击生殖器等酷刑逼供得出的口供为证给郭飞雄定罪，判处郭飞雄有期徒刑五年，罚款四万。

二00七年十二月十三日，经过长达十四个月的非法拘留和无数次的酷刑后，郭飞雄从广州第三看守所转到广东省梅州市监狱服刑。郭飞雄到监狱的当天就受到狱方的威胁，威胁要送他去精神病院。此外，狱方还规定不准他看报读书，不准他与其他犯人说话。同时，强迫他做长时间体力劳动。为了抗议这非人的待遇，郭飞雄在转到梅州监狱的当天宣布绝食一百天。

十二月十八日，在郭飞雄绝食的第五天，在二百多服刑人员面前，狱方暗中指定一个犯人对郭飞雄进行长时间毒打，直到周围观看的二百多犯人看不下去出声制止，打人者才住手。

更令我伤心的是，我的儿子去年九月应该入读小学一年级，可是他却遭到校方的拒绝，现在我的儿子已经失学在家五个多月了。我的将要升中学的女儿也受到失学的威胁，政府有关方面的人威胁郭飞雄说，“我们不会让你的儿子上小学，不会让你的女儿升初中。”

我的孩子经常问我，“为什么爸爸还不回家？为什么我不能上学？”

总统先生，现在我的丈夫还在狱中进行绝食抗争，已绝食三十四天，（狱方给其灌食少量流质食物，灌食量是一天食物量的四分之一。）他的险恶的处境令我极度担忧。我给我国的胡锦涛主席也写了信，但没得到回音，我只好求助于你，求助于崇尚人权的美国政府，希望美国政府能够发出声音，帮助制止中国司法机构这种严重侵犯人权的迫害和酷刑，帮助我的孩子免受歧视和失学的不公，督促中国当局释放郭飞雄。

非常感谢你对中国人权的关注和帮助。

张青

二00八年一月十五日

You can do a search for the text of Gao Zhisheng's letter about Hu Jia's kidnapping. I would like to know what you think about these cases. Please have a read and a think and get back to me.--Asdfg12345 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Still waiting on a response.--Asdfg12345 05:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I too am stil waiting on your response to Epoch Times using breast cancer photo to fake a "sexual torture" story. As least I am not so dishonest to "archive" the discussion so I don't have to deal with it. Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware that you expected a response from me on that. It's actually irrelevant to the Epoch Times page since there are no reliable sources behind that. It can't be proven either way, so I don't know what the issue is. It's one peoples' words over another. If someone says it looks like breast cancer, that's fine. That doesn't mean that it doesn't also look like electric baton torture. How many people have seen breasts tortured by electric batons? Not very many at all outside prisons in China, I'd say. To rule out that that could be the cause, given the mountain of evidence around the persecution, and also reliable reports of widespread genital mutilation against practitioners is too much a leap of faith for my tastes. But I'm beginning to think that there's no point communicating with you any further on these points. I can't figure the rationale behind what you are doing, and I'm starting to think that there may not really be one. Let's just keep it business-like from now on. In the meantime, please do stop editing in contravention of WP:DE and WP:TE.--Asdfg12345 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can bring up problems with users at WP:AIAV, which is the best way to bring the issue to the attention of the administrators. - Koweja (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If someone is vandalizing and needs to be blocked, make an WP:AIAV report. If someone vandalizes once revert it. In this case, a revert and a warning is sufficient, and that's what has happened. Mangojuice^talk 14:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the list, but my English is just no good enough to contribute to the article, May i suggest you to add these claims by Li Hongzhi to the article, and I think Martin is happy to do the copy editing, as long as it is well sourced. If any of those FLG editors has any objection I will back you up (Yes I believed we share the same view on Falun Gong). Again, thanks for your work on FLG related articles. Zixingche (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you have material backed by reliable sources that you feel is being unfairly blanked, collect them on a user subpage or in a sandpit where they can be looked over. --Simon D M (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

1) removal of citation from Zonaeuropa, a source Asdfg had previously accepted:

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting&diff=199252635&oldid=199162090

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting&diff=195911630&oldid=195868915

c) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting&diff=195814588&oldid=189453120

2) blanking citation from ClearWisdom, a source Asdfg has used himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting&diff=198095416&oldid=198012180

3) blanking news report from The Ottawa Citizen

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting&diff=178483849&oldid=178482051

4) blanking report from US Congressional Research Services

a)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting&diff=185211623&oldid=185097691

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting&diff=195814588&oldid=189453120

5) blanking neutural POV report by Asia Times reporter Francesco Sisci

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=199256756&oldid=199249051

6) blanking the fact Epoch Times is affiliated with Falun Gong Too Many!!!

7) Editor Asdfg12345 blanking Encyclopedia Brittanica, as well as source he himself have heavily promoted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#RfC_-_Four_notable_sources_BLANKED_by_editor_ASDFG12345

8) Editor Asdfg12345 blanking link from Chinese Foreign Ministry, a notalbe source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=222969997&oldid=222929185

Even after the admins okayed the edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=223041906&oldid=223037963

(TBD, starting in 2006) 1) Removal of citation from usinfo.state.gov relevant to article

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting&diff=70909412&oldid=68882272

Thanks for uploading Image:2008 Olympic Torch London Attacked.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:2008 Olympic Torch London Attacked.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image 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. Aleenf1 06:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please do not post personal information regarding other users as you did in recent edits to Talk:Falun_Gong#My_own_analysis and Talk:Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting#STRONGLY_disputing_Asdfg.27s_.22blanking.22_of_fact_from_previously_accepted_source. If you have evidence of such a nature, please forward it privately to the Arbitration Committee. Fred Talk 13:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have seen your contributions, and I believe they are fairly NPOV. Since we both are attempting to bring neutrality and wrest control from what appears to be FLG disciples, an article regarding FLG I believe needs your attention if you have the time. Both I and Ohconfucius have been dumbfounded by the edits of User:Dilip rajeev, on the article Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. If possible, you may contribute the the talk page and express what you believe, since you are a major contributor to such topics. Thanks. EgraS (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (2nd nomination)?--PCPP (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

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) 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is just to let you know that if you do not stop the personal attacks, harassment (i.e. attempting to "out" who you think I am), and assumptions of bad faith, I will open an RfC about it. Please remove references to who you believe is my real-life identity wherever you have posted them. If you continue to engage in this behaviour then I will open a case. (RfC means "request for comment"). Cheers. --Asdfg12345 01:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to take me to Arb, just remember your harassemnt of me by posting the Western Standeards article. Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I repeat: please remove the instances where you refer to what you believe is my real life identity. It is obvious that by editing here as Bobby fletcher, a name you are (in)famous for, you must not have a problem being identified. On the other hand, I have asked you to fix the problem, it has been oversighted, and you have continued. You have also mixed it with continual personal attacks and incivility. These are very different issues. --Asdfg12345 11:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You need to be more specific as to which instances you are refering to. Non-specific request/threat like this will get you nowhere with me or Arb. I reapeat, take me to Arb - your notion of "infamous" is not a fact, and the fact is you have "outted" me. You have refered to what you believe is my real life idendity in the organ harvesting talk page - SIX TIMES since Jan 2008. Please fix these specific instances of harrasement. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Bobby, how do you know Asdfg12345? I'm really confused.--PCPP (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

check Asdfg12345's edit history. He has openly given away his identity (such as personal email address) in appearant attempt to canvas - following his own logic in justifying outting me - he must not have a problem being identified.

You see, I did't do anything he didn't do, first. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Titles such as this does only show that you have no Good Faith anymore [1]. Also you stated that you don't have good faith anymore: "After lenghty encounters with editor Asdfg12345, I can no longer Assume Good Faith." [2].

This means that you are on a crusade and you go whole heartedly against a fundamental principle in Wikipedia WP:AGF.

If you really think that you are right, go ahead Request for Comment, open an ArbCom case, do whatever you think you are entitled to, but be civil. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have stated my reason why I can no longer assume good faith, which is exactely what AGF said. Please stop making untruthfull, uncivilized accusation/attack. I don't desire your De 8-) Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah ok, thanks for doing that. Intranetusa (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I responded to your query about the edit to the Falun Gong article on WP:ANI. However that is really for problems requiring administrator intervention. It's not for help in resolving disputes, which you don't need an admin for.

If you are in a dispute in future, the first thing to do is to make contact on the talk page of the article. Discuss the difference of opinion there and try to see what the other person's objection is and see if you can fix it.

If you cannot agree with one another and you need more opinions try going to WP:RFC and follow the instructions under "Request comment on articles, templates, or categories".

If you need advice or are just stuck and don't know how to proceed, try Wikipedia:Questions which should show you where to look next. If you find you're still stuck, you can ask me for help. --Jenny 10:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see that I seem to have stumbled across your old war with the FLG trio of abusers, this is never going to end until we get them banned is it? :( Laomei (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have responded to your comment on that discussion page. Please do not revert further edits to the article without first reaching a consensus at the talk page. Thank you. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 22:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on articles related to Chinese gymnasts. 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. LedRush (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am very offended by your recent post attempting to slander me at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. Please stop this immediately, or I will be forced to report this to an administrator.

And, just to make this official:

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 21:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am reproducing here the message I left you at Talk:He Kexin:

The sentence you added is not notable. Of course the parents were indignant; all of China was indignant. That's not a fact that's notable to the investigation, however. Besides, the source you are putting in is a month and a half old, and thus is not as relevant as other sources anymore. If you want the source to be in that article, integrate it somewhere else in a paragraph; don't add a completely useless sentence about how the parents were indignant.

For those reasons, please do not continue adding this uninformative information unless you can integrate it into the article for real. Simply adding a random paragraph to say that someone's parents were indignant does not contribute anything real to anyone's understanding of what happened. Wikipedia is not a place for a random collection of all the random things you want to say; everything you add must fit into the article somehow. If you continue this disruptive editing, we will have no choice but to give you further warnings. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

This message is to inform you that I have reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for multiple reverts to He Kexin and Age requirements in gymnastics, as well as general edit warring. If you have anything to say, you may comment on the discussion there. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 00:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please read How to create links. When linking to a Wikipedia page or talk page, you should use internal links (made with [[ and ]]), not external links as you have consistently been doing. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 01:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please read the guidelines for citing sources and the guidelines for creating footnotes. Some of your additions of footnotes, including the one you discussed in your recent post at Talk:He Kexin, have included inappropriate titles that you made up for articles that already have titles. This could be seen as a serious Wikipedia offense—essentially trying to misrepresent the content of an article—and must stop immediately. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 01:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at He Kexin. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bobby_fletcher: please DO NOT use company proxies when you want to get in an edit war... Your behavior caused MANY people besides yourself to be blocked. If you feel the need to violate rules that will get you blocked, feel free. Just please be polite and do it from home, thanks! Nothingofwater (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I mean this not at all as a threat, but only as advice: as you have already been blocked once for your actions at He Kexin and related articles, you are at risk of being blocked again for a much longer period, or banned, if you start to repeat the sort of editing you were doing earlier—and it will take much less disruptive editing on your part to get an administrator to block you. For that reason, it is in your own best interest not to re-open old arguments, especially on those pages.

As for your insertion of information at He Kexin, I have already expressed my opinions on that over and over again, in many different ways, and I do not with to get involved in that argument again. If you want to continue your previous actions and keep on repeating yourself without offering any new arguments, you are welcome to do it, but you'll have to do it with someone else. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 13:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just to make something said above explicitly clear, you don't need to make 4 reversions in 24 hours to be blocked for edit warring. You can also be blocked for repeatedly reverting the same text over time. It can seem unfair when the language you want isn't added, but the idea is that if 3 people disagree with 1, than that 1 person't arguments can't defeat the 3 merely be reverting over and over again. Please keep this in mind.LedRush (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please don't try to start a fight at Talk:One-child policy. If you have specific, constructive suggestions for improvement, then make those suggestions so that people may address them and improve the article. But don't just show up and say the article is bad. You're not going to improve any articles by just saying such vague and antagonistic things. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 20:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are starting an edit war again. Since the version of the article without a separate "sources" section had already been in place for about a week before you removed it, you were the first one to revert without discussion. Therefore, please take everything you are saying about "please don't revert without discussing first," and apply that to yourself. If you really want to have a civil discussion, leave the page the way it was before you got there today, and then reach a consensus at the talk page. But don't come in and make edits to what had been an accepted version of the article, and then say that other editors need to reach a consensus before they can remove your unaccepted edits. If you continue your edit warring, I will not hesitate to report you again. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to One-child policy. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

This edit inserted text directly plagiarized from here. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The sentence:

"Local officials, who run the family planning program in the field, are given flexibility. Official policy recognizes practical difficulties as justification for sanctioning second children - for example, when the father is a disabled serviceman, or when both parents are single children."

does not exist in the original article; attempt to alter it in order to adhere to copyright and fair use was made.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The sentence in the article: Official policy recognizes practical difficulties as justification for sanctioning second children - for example, when a first child is mentally or physically handicapped, or is female, or when the father is a disabled serviceman, or when both parents are single children.

Your sentence: Official policy recognizes practical difficulties as justification for sanctioning second children - for example, when the father is a disabled serviceman, or when both parents are single children.

The only difference between the two is that you removed "when a first child is mentally or physically handicapped, or is female, or." Other than that, they're exactly the same, even down to the quotes surrounding practical difficulties (double apostrophes in the original article, rendered as italics in your Wikipedia edit). Do not do it again. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with you. It is not exactely the same, and a very small fractions of the article was used. It is adhering to copyright and fair use. We can go to admin for clarification. Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is exactly the same: you removed one phrase and kept the rest of the sentence intact, so most of the wording is the same. Also, an article is not an image; the fact that you only plagiarized a "small fraction" without putting it in quotations doesn't change the fact that you plagiarized it. The "copyright and fair use" you are referring to is not the way copyright works for published text; copying without attributing is plagiarism. I did not have any intention of seeking administrative action in this particular matter; I was merely warning you never to do it again. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

For further information, see Wikipedia:Plagiarism (note the first sentence: "Plagiarism is the copying of material produced by others without attributing that material to the original author, whether verbatim or with only minimal changes," emphasis added). The Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, is an American-based company, and American rules regarding plagiarism may be different than what you are used to, so please familiarize yourself with the policies regarding plagiarism. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The changes I made is not minimal ~25% of the sentence was altered. Let's go to Admin for some clarification. Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is minimal in that most of the sentence is left the same. Nothing was "altered"; the only change you made was to remove a small part. You are misunderstanding the definition of plagiarism. Anyway, as I said, I had no plans of bringing this to administrators' attention, but if you insist then you are welcome to go find an admin and look at this. My only purpose in sending this message was to give you a warning and make sure you don't plagiarize again. If you insist on having a fight over it, though, I will not hinder you from bringing in an administrator; I don't care what you say here as long as you don't plagiarize again. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please define "small" per wikipedia policy. IMHO You have not substantiated your accusation. Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

How about this: instead of defining the size of what you did change, look at the size of what you didn't:

The segment "Official policy recognizes practical difficulties as justification for sanctioning second children - for example," is exactly the same in both your edit and the original source. The segment "or when the father is a disabled serviceman, or when both parents are single children" is exactly the same in both your edit and the original source. Don't think of the original NYT article as having one sentence that you modified, but as having three "sentences," two of which you copied directly into the article and one (the middle one) of which you didn't. Does that make more sense?

There is no need for you to perpetuate the argument; as I have already said, I am not planning on seeking administrative action against you for this, so you don't have to defend yourself against anything. I was merely informing you what was wrong with your edit so you would not do it again. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please cite wikipedia rules re what didn't change. assuming that's what you meant. Until you can cite something to demonstrated "small", "didn't", I'm going to stick with your original cite of "minimal" and insist ~25%, or nearly 1/4 of the sentence altered, is not "minimal". I would say 1 or 2 words is probably "minimal".

And please be factual - only one sentence is involved. Any forced supposition and anything I've done that is originated from your imagination is not factual.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have already showed you two phrases that were word-for-word (ie, they "didn't change"). There is no point arguing over this and trying to find a loophole; the fact of the matter is, the simplest way I can put this, if you copy text word-for-word it's plagiarism. Just removing a few words from the middle doesn't change the fact that most of the text is copied word-for-word.

To be frank, I am sick and tired of your repeating the same thing over and over again and refusing to listen to anything I have to say. I have tried to be civil and to explain this to you, but you refuse to listen. I'm done arguing over this. It was plagiarism, end of story; if you really want so badly to prove me wrong, then find an administrator to look at this case, but I guarantee you he or she will also say it was plagiarism. So yeah, if you still want have a frivolous argument over this, find an administrator to argue with; I am not going to respond to your repetitive comments at this topic anymore. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You have not proven your plagiarism accusation one bit. You cited "minimal" and I used the standard - 25% is not minimal IMHO. And please do not weasle around with "3 sentences", "phrases". What is it? All I ask is you be factual. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since you're unwilling to pay attention to anything I say, I will refer you to Franamax's advice:

Commenting on the specific example, if I understand the dialogue - copying a sentence verbatim and excising a clause from the middle of it is still copying. A good question to ask is: how much of your article writing is done with the mouse (copy/paste/cut) and how much is done with the keyboard? Unless you're putting it in quotes or references, you should be using the keyboard.

As Franamax said, copying a sentence and then deleting part of it is not the same as actually modifying content. "Minimal modification" refers to doing things like tweaking spelling or punctuation, or removing part of a portion while copying the rest. The fact that you deleted some of the sentence doesn't mean you "modified" the sentence; it just means you plagiarized part of a sentence rather than plagiarizing a whole sentence. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

And I'd like to point out Franamax did not use the word "plagerism". Again I must remind you of the cite you made origionall, eg "minimal" (25%, or 1/4 was changed - please provide definition of "small"), and what does not constitute plagerism. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here is your answer: copying constitutes plagiarism. It's that simple. You're the only one trying to make it complicated. When in doubt, always err on the side of caution: use quotation marks more often than you think you might need to, or rephrase things more than you think might be necessary. Plagiarism is a serious problem for Wikipedia's credibility and for others' intellectual property rights, and should be avoided at all costs. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

"copying constitutes plagiarism" - please substantiate this claim, as it contradicts your previous cite (verbatim, minimal, ref "what is not plagiarism".

And I don't want a fight. You are the one that keeps comming to my talk page and pick on me. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

(undent) Politizer, can you suggest what to you would be an acceptable rewording? Direct copying of wording is not good (regardless of whether intervening phrases are dropped), but sometimes it's difficult to convey the simple facts without repeating at least some of the wording. Rather than only quoting rules, your suggestions for how to avoid the problem would likely be more instructive. Franamax (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The current version after I edited it is a better and non-plagiarized wording. That is why I'm frustrated with Bobby fletcher's insistence on causing a fight over this: the wording has already been corrected and has not been contested at the article, and he is the only one perpetuating this issue.

As for "only quoting rules," if you read the conversation, you will see that I gave Bobby fletcher several explanations before I ever linked to Wikipedia:Plagiarism. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Franamax, Please look at the edit above, or perhaps you can elaborate the meaning of "unaltered" and "minimal". Plaase note I altered one sentence from the artice cited and used it because most of it is common knowledge. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are mixing up your policies. "Common knowledge" has to do with verifiability (it is often brought up in contexts such as, "I don't need to cite X, it's common knowledge!"). Whether or not something is common knowledge has nothing to do with plagiarism. Plagiarism isn't about the content of what you copy; it's about the fact that you have copied someone else's words and used them as your own. Please take a moment to try to learn about plagiarism, rather than continually defending yourself and making an argument; if you make a small effort to understand what I'm talking about, you could avoid this entire fight. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's from the link you provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What_is_not_plagiarism

Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

First of all, Bobby, that page is a guideline that is still under construction. Secondly, "common knowledge" is already an area of much dispute on Wikipedia (if you paid attention to the reasons behind the guidelines, instead of just mindlessly regurgitating guidelines in attempt to push your own views—I won't go into that here, but I'll give you some diffs if you really want—you would know that). Thirdly, and most importantly, something's being common knowledge doesn't give you permission to plagiarize someone else's words about that common knowledge. It's ok to say common knowledge in your own words, not someone else's. In other words, you can write "The sky is blue" in an article; but if NYT publishes an article talking about how the sky is blue, and you copy parts of that article word-for-word, your copying of the text still qualifies as plagiarism, even though the subject of the article was common knowledge.

Now please stop fighting for long enough to realize that we didn't start this discussion to attack you, but only to inform you about the plagiarism policy so that you could make valuable contributions in the future. The only person responsible for turning this into a fight is you, and you're the one who can decide whether or not you want the fight to continue. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not the one going to other people's talk page and pick on them. Franamax made an alternative suggestion, and I agree with him/her. Please observe the editorial process and allow changes that are voted in during discussion. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

(multi e/c) Sorry Bobby, I'm not with you at all on this one. You've directly copied someone else's exact words and chopped a little out of the middle - that's not your original work. We write Wikipedia in our own words and license those words under GFDL to be freely copied. James Scheuer didn't agree to those terms, only you did. If you'd put those words inside quote-marks, with ellipsis for the bits you took out, that would be fine.

And I'm not all that cool with using an opinion piece as a source anyway, it doesn't look all that reliable to me - but I won't argue that point, 'cause I see no particular reason to think the congressman is unreliable either. But you do have to be careful quoting opinion pieces, or at least note them as such. Franamax (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Franamax. I don't care what you say; just want an honest opinion that's all. I'm okay with your suggestion of putting those words inside quotes.

Should I start an RfQ and get more votes on this, or can I go ahead and make the suggested change per Franamax? Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

What change? What quotes? The plagiarism was removed from the article long ago. It's been rewritten in different wording; there's no more need for quotes. And there is no need for an RfC, the issue has been resolved.—Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm refering to the change Franamax suggested 1) put quotes and ... 2) note it's an opinion. I second Franamax' suggestion. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

No quotes are necessary; as I said, I reworded the sentence hours ago. The version that is in the article is as follows: "As early as 1987, official policy granted local officials the flexibility to make exceptions and allow second children in the case of "practical difficulties" (such as cases in which the father is a disabled serviceman) or when both parents are single children." That is fairly reworded and there are no further plagiarism issues, so there's no need to add quotes or change anything about it. The best course of action is to just drop this whole issue. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I vote with Franamax on putting in quotes, ..., and note it as an opinion.

I believe Franamax' suggestion is better. That's two votes against one. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Franamax didn't say he wanted you to put the sentence in quotes. He said that your original edit would have been ok if you had put it in quotes, which you didn't. He didn't say anything about a need to change the current revision. This is not the first time you have put words in another user's mouth.

The wording as it stands now is unproblematic and has not been contested; if you change it to go back to the copied wording and put that in quotes, that will be a needless and frivolous change, and I will revert it. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Regarding "picking on you," I am not coming on your talk page to pick on you; I left you a warning about your editing, and you have continually challenged everything I say. If you don't want me at your talk page, then don't post comments for me to respond to.

And, finally, please stop telling me to "respect the editorial process." There has been no "voting" on whether or not we should change the wording of the formerly plagiarized sentence that is in the article; this is an "editorial process" that you are making up for your own benefit. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way the article is worded now; in fact, it's better than a direct quotation would be. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why are you picking on me like this? Two editors have agreed to an alternative edit to address the problem.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Franamax's suggestion either, and I think his suggestion is better than your edit. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

(undent again) Give me a chance to catch up here :) The reworded sentence is OK as it stands IMO, and I've added "(Opinion)" to the ref caption to more clearly show that it's one man's wording - it would be OK with me as it stands. I'd have no great objection to changing it as Bobby says either - but really, is it worth it? I'd rather go back and get lost in articles about northern British Columbia right now, and I bet there's lots of other issues you guys could be arguing about too :) Franamax (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Franamax, for your reasonable elaboration. I will let this accusation against me drop. Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

My last word on this: there is no need for an "alternative edit to address the problem," Bobby fletcher, as there is no problem. I fixed the problem hours ago.

Believe whatever you want to believe about me being mean and "accusing" you. Another user has already agreed that your edit was inappropriate. I don't care whether you are "guilty" or not, all I care about is that you don't make such edits again. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 08:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

And my last word will be that there are no accusations here and there's not really any inappropriate edits either. We had a misunderstanding and lack of information, we've aired the various laundry and discussed the issues - everything is fine now. Right? What really matters is whether we agree that the article is OK, and I think we're all prepared to say that, at least for a week or two. There's no need to label one another, let's all chill out :) Franamax (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The real problem here is not the text, but Bobby Fletcher's unwillingness to say "sorry, I made a mistake, let's go fix it". He clearly plagarized, Politizer asked in the nicest possible terms to get it fixed, and a third editor came in and indicated that the passage was plagiarized and Bobby Fletcher still reacted with vitriol and denial. When presented with cool heads and helping hands, it's best not to spit in their faces.LedRush (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Response to: "I disagree. You are the one who cited the plagiarism wiki. The only reason I objected to your warning is because it makes no sense. You mixed up copyrigth and plagairsm, and all the cites I'm working with came from you. Which is it? If it's copyright it allows fair use. If it's plagiarism wikipedia have it's current state of rules. I've on more than one occasion offered to go to the admins, and I'll again offer it here in front of everyone. Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)"Reply

What are you talking about? First of all, "all the cites I'm working with came from you" is a blatant lie; you found and brought up http://psych.skidmore.edu/plagiarism.htm all by yourself, and as I have shown, that resource classifies your edit as plagiarism. So don't say "everything I'm working with came from you" when there is a source right there that you dug up on your own. Secondly, I showed you the link to WP:Plagiarism as a resource for you to educate yourself, not as a policy to shove in your face. You are the one who keeps abusively bringing up "policies" in attempt to defend everything you do. Thirdly, don't accuse me of "mixing up" copyright and plagiarism, when you obviously have no understanding of what plagiarism means, and two users other than myself have already stated that your edit qualified as plagiarism (diff and diff).

Finally, I have already said you are welcome to go to admins, and have no prevented you from doing so. However, this is not an admin issue, as we're not talking about blocking anyone; it was merely a warning. Bringing an admin into this would be very immature, but you are welcome to do it if you want. You are the only person who stands to lose from it. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Politizer, you brought up plagiarism in the 1st entry, as well as the 6th entry where you cited the wiki:

"For further information, see Wikipedia:Plagiarism (note the first sentence: "Plagiarism is the copying of material produced by others without attributing that material to the original author, whether verbatim or with only minimal changes," emphasis added). The Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, is an American-based company, and American rules regarding plagiarism may be different than what you are used to, so please familiarize yourself with the policies regarding plagiarism. —Politizer talk/contribs 06:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)"

Do you deny this? You said "policies regarding plagiarism" along with your citation. I cited additional source on the subject because you brought this issue up. If your citation of plagiarism is merely for education not for policy, then what is your rationale for correction my edit?

Once again your warning and edit makes no sense. Are you warning me about copyright or plagiarism? Based on what wikipedia policy?

As to what other editor said, here's what editor Franamax said:

"And my last word will be that there are no accusations here and there's not really any inappropriate edits either."

Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I do so love to see the way you change your story after every time I say something.

I brought up plagiarism in the first entry because what you did was plagiarism, no matter what Wikipedia has to say about plagiarism. I linked to WP:Plagiarism to give you more information. (I didn't say, "what I did is right because of WP:Plagiarism," which is what you do—citing it in that way is tantamount to shoving a policy in someone's face, and that page is not even policy yet.) I did not "cite" the plagiarism page, as you keep saying; I merely showed it to you so you could educate yourself before starting an idiotic argument (but no matter, you started one anyway).

I don't mind the fact that you cited an additional source; I mind the fact that you said "all the cites I'm working with came from you" even though you know (as you acknowledged just now, admitting that you brought in the Skidmore source) that that was a complete lie.

I was warning you about both copyright and plagiarism. I don't care what official Wikipedia policy there is on it, it is still wrong to blatantly copy words other people's copyrighted work (ie, newspaper articles or editorials), and every administrator on Wikipedia will agree with me on that. There doesn't need to be a specific WP rule against it for you to figure that out (see WP:IAR for an official policy addressing why there doesn't need to be a specific "rule" about that, and WP:BEANS for more information). Blatant plagiarism is just rude, dishonest, and dumb in general; you can't defend it just by saying "but Wikipedia didn't tell me not to." You should know better.

But again, like I said, feel free to bring an administrator in to give you a second opinion. I know you don't listen to or respect anything I say, so you might as well find someone else to ignore. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

As for Franamax, you can cherry-pick and selectively quote all you want, but he did agree that your edit was plagiarism: "Sorry Bobby, I'm not with you at all on this one. You've directly copied someone else's exact words and chopped a little out of the middle - that's not your original work." And, as Franamax said, no one was "accusing" you of anything, I was merely warning you before things got out of a hand. The only person who raised the idea of "accusations" was you, when you were so eager to defend yourself and refuse to admit you had done anything wrong. You are the only reason this argument is going on. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The title of your warning does not reflect your claim of "both copyright and plagiarism". Also since there's no wikipedia policy on plagiarism you have not ground to warn me, or make any edit based on claim of plagiarism.

Let me remind you your edit was maded with following remark:

"change wording, original was plagiarism."

Now the truth is wikipedia does not have official policy on plagiarism, only copyright.

You don't see why your warning is not valid? Your edit of my edit is not valid?

Copyright allows fair use. Don't mix them up. Let me remind you again to read the title of your warning.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

My edit of your edit was perfectly valid. Regardless of what official policy is, your direct copying of someone else's words shows a complete disrespect of that writer's work and intellectual property, and undermines the respectability of Wikipedia in general.

You can keep blabbering all you want about how Wikipedia lacks an official policy on it, but one of the fundamental guidelines on Wikipedia is to have respect and do the right thing even when there isn't a specific guideline. Regardless of what the official rules are, anyone who looks at your edit (here are the links, for anyone following along: [diff, source) can easily tell that your edit was not in the spirit of Wikipedia.

Do I need an official policy to put my reasons for editing in an edit summary? No, that's just bullshit. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

And, once again, plagiarism is not the same thing as copyright violation. Plagiarism has to do with intellectual property; copyright is just one thing under intellectual property. Look at the second paragraph of Plagiarism (the WP article, not the proposed guideline page); there is consensus right there that plagiarism is not the same thing as copyvio. Copying written text is not the same thing as fair use. You are the only one "mixing things up." —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with you. What official wikipedia policy is there in this regard? By your own admission there's no wikipedia policy on plagarism, and yhou changed my edit based on your own opinion, not any stated wikipedia policy.

There are other ways to fix copyright issue, but you didn't do that. You used a bogus and compltely personal rationale of plagiarism - which there's no wikipedia policy.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, so now people can't make a single Wikipedia edit unless there's a policy backing it up?

You change edits based on your opinion all the time. Everyone does. If we needed a policy to do anything, Wikipedia would not function.

I don't know what you mean by saying I didn't fix the issue on the page. (Again, not a copyright issue; plagiarism and copyright are different things, did you even read the message I just posted?) I did fix it, I changed the sentence so it was no longer in the same wording, and it was not worse in any way that it had been before--in fact, I added more information than there was originally.

Your comments now have gotten to be just ridiculous and inane, so I see no point continuing this conversation. Please don't expect me to comment again unless you bring in an outside editor to give me something actually worth responding to. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and by the way, my "rationale" for determining that your edit was plagiarism was not "completely personal"; anyone with a brain could see that your edit was a copy-and-paste. Split hairs about it all you want, but no administrator on Wikipedia is ever going to say that your edit was right. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

An equally valid fix to address the copyright issue, which Wikipedia has official rule on, is to properly attribute it. You didn't give me an opportunity to fix it that way. Instead you accuse me of plagiarism, which wikipedia's in-work policy doesn't support your accusation at all. If you want to stick to academic notion of plagiarism, then your fix by paraphrasing it is still plagiarism. Let me remind you again the title of your warning is "copyright warning" Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know, I moved the under-construction factbox from Talk:One-child policy#Sandbox: Provincial adoption of national family planning policy to User:Politizer/One-child policy by province in my userspace so it can be worked on there. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bobby fletcher, there is a content dispute going on at He Kexin; one editor is reverting He's date of birth repeatedly. I started a discussion here. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, could you please take a look at this discussion? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Bobby fletcher, Politizer here (I have changed my username). It looks like you have been away for a while, but anyway, if you get this message, I was wondering if you are still interested in working on User:Rjanag/One-child policy by province, the list of province-specific family planning policies. I think it would be a good article/table to have, but I myself probably do not have the resources to finish it; if you or someone else has the information, though, then I will at least help with editing, organizing, etc. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bobby Fletcher. I was thinking of having another attempt at taking the FLG issue to higher wikipedia authorities, as ArbCom decisions for NPOV has certainly not been enforced. The state of the article (and all FLG-related articles) is getting worse and worse and nothing is being done. The FLG agenda is perpetuating across Wikipedia. Do you have any pointers on this issue? Colipon+(T) 17:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

What is, exactly, the "FLG agenda"? --Asdfg12345 02:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bobby, there is a mediator for the FLG articles now. I noticed that you haven't been on for a while but see if you want to join in at Talk:Falun Gong. BTW, Asdfg, FLG agenda refers to FLG's political agenda. --Edward130603 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_2 Irbisgreif (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here over his editing at the Falun Gong family of articles and elsewhere. You might like to comment. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back to editing Falun Gong articles. You should know that there is currently an arbitration case in its final stage regarding the Falun Gong subject area. Because of your recent edits, you were mentioned negatively[3] in some of the proceedings. I suggest that you study some of the proposed decision, including the new remedy, and try your best to adhere to WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, etc to avoid sanctions. A lot has changed since you were last active: this and this page document some of the dispute resolution history. In particular, I would suggest that you not complain to User:Homunculus or User:TheSoundAndTheFury about Falun Gong activism, as you have done,[4] since they themselves are accused of the same. If you have any questions about editing here, feel free to ask me. Shrigley (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Bobby, can you elaborate on this? [5][6]. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I was talking about the Epoch Times reporter Matt Robertson whom have repeatedly deleted my edits in the past, apparently in bad faith. I stopped editing because of that. It is well documented fact that in the past self-professed Falun Gong disciples have attempted to "circle the wagon" on Falun Gong related pages, and my decision to stop editing is proof against any accusation of "agenda" levied against me.

Simply put, if I am again prevented from good faith participation and adding facts I feel are relevant to the topic, I will simply stop editing again, and let those who do not believe in the spirit of participatory knowledge to cause chaos, to the point of requiring administrative intervention.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Falun Gong content just recently lost one of its best and most knowledgable editors, so I don't think anyone really wants to see anyone else who can contribute to the content productively to not be able to do so. The Matt Robertson matter you mention above was before I got involved, but given the history of the content that I do know about I can say I don't doubt you about what you say. There is a possibility, considering that the content is under discretionary sanctions, that you might potentially be banned if you seriously misbehave. Honestly, so might I and anyone else involved, because that's the nature of discretionary sanctions. So, yeah, if someone sees you misbehave in a serious way, they can go to WP:AE or possibly WP:ANI to request sanctions against you. And, if you see anyone else engage in serious misconduct, you can do the same thing regarding them. Personally, I was glad to see someone produce additional evidence that I didn't have, like you did regarding the Epoch Times, and I am very happy to see anyone who can add reliably sourced information I didn't know about. But, yeah, you, like everyone else involved, should probably be on your best behavior regarding FG related content.

In any event, I am grateful to see another editor who knows something about the subject, and can contribute some reliably sourced information. We definitely could use as many as we can get. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

While I don't normally attack people for their politics, you make it such a strong point of your contributions that I will offer a word of gratuitous advice. Don't pick a fight on Tiananmen Square, your POV Is against consensus both here on Wikipedia and in the world in general. Frankly, it's sick. Stick to Falun Gong bashing, it's not fashionable, but at least many rational thinking people would agree with you. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well dude, you just made this my new mission, to bring balance to what I see as POV. BTW, can I count on you to add the Wikileak release of US embassy wire to the Tiananmen wiki? I believe it should have more prominence, as in it should be in summary as well as detail. I would be more than happy to defer this edit to you, but if you are busy I'll will give it a poor attempt.

And please stop attacking fellow editors, this is not what Wikipedia is about. If you have proof I'm a paid internet agent please show some citation. My edits to the Falun Gong articles are factual in nature. If you see bashing feel free to show me.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is Bobby fletcher. Thank you. —Drm310 (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since the initial Conflict of Interest filing did not lead to a resolution or get administrator attention, I have started a new section about your conduct on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. You are welcome to post a response to that page.[7]. Thanks —Zujine|talk 12:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please note that as per the consensus at the abovementioned AE discussion (link), you are now topic-banned from all edits – including discussion – relating to Falun Gong, for a period of 1 year.

It has also been alleged that you have been editing logged-out with the IP 175.176.145.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to continue an edit-war on Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Let me warn you not to try that; it will be treated as sockpuppet abuse and lead to blocks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Where is a good place to put this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/technology/epoch-times-influence-falun-gong.html Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply