User talk:Cj cawley

Welcome!

Hello, Cj cawley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CovenantD 18:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong[edit]

Please show the notability of the court case you keep inserting on the Falun Gong site. Referencing a general court web site is not adequate. If you can prove the notability of the case then it may stay. If you can't, it will be removed every time. CovenantD 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to determine what is acceptable? Many sites are now protected in ways that do not lend them seleves to hyperlinking. Sorry, but you need to update your standards to the reality of the twenty first century. CJCAWLEY 10:49, 9 June 2006 (EST)

You need to update your knowledge of Wikipedia policies as to what is acceptable for inclusion. I suggest you start with Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. CovenantD 15:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits[edit]

Please do not put arbitrary edits on the article. Please check on wiki policies for edits. Fnhddzs 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to[edit]

If everybody else did. How can I talk on the other page when Dilip keeps locking it. Samuel is right. They should ban him. I am giving you a website that is run by a government agency that has the case scheduled. What else could possibly be more factual?

June 2006

Nobody locked the talk page [1]. I just wrote on it. How can you say Dilip locked it? It is weird. Also please sign your name and date by typing four tilts. Fnhddzs 01:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Only administrators could lock a page (Dilip is not yet). Please be serious (do not be slanderous). Fnhddzs 01:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apparently do not have write access to the talk page. It comes up protected for me. Yes, I am registered. Unlike you, I used my name.

- Chris

RE:Falun Gong webpage....[edit]

Hello. You are unable to edit the talk page because it is semi-protected due to vandalism perpetrated by Falun Gong practitioners. Sorry. If you wait for a few days (I think a week or was it 4 days) you will be not considered a possible sockpuppet/vandal account and can bypass the semi-protection. The material you included was deleted by me because it does not conform to a Neutral Point Of View, that is to say it is opinion-based (at least the last 3 lines) and therefore is not suitable for the main article page. However it should still be there on the talk page. Your case has not gone to court yet, so feel free to come back when Falun Gong IS toasted... then hopefully it can become a landmark case and set a legal precedent. I wish you the best of luck. -- Миборовский 09:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I accessed the link you provided and searched for "24648/2003" but the court website didn't return anything.

Three revert rule[edit]

You need to acquaint your self with the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. You have now reverted Falun Gong three times in the last 24 hours. Your next revert may cause you to be blocked from editing Wikipedia for a while. CovenantD 18:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use your real name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj cawley (talk • contribs)

That's funny in ways you can't begin to imagine. CovenantD 18:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was bioengineered, born with a tooth, survived 9/11 & Flight 587. I can imagine a lot. Cj cawley 19:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Миборовский 22:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to create a bot that will do exactly what they are doing. This way, it will be fair. You need to update your 3 reverts rule to apply to PEOPLE who are honestly trying to update the article. XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX can be anyone. As your can see from the edits, I have continuously offered to provide information. To date, there have been no takers. Wiki was a search for truth. Not their truth, my truth or your truth. Truth that will stand on it's own. My book exists. The court case exists. I exist.

intro 2nd paragraph[edit]

CJ cawley welcome. Yes, Let's work together to prevent FG practitioners from turning this article into a FG propaganda. The issue in discussion right now is this [2] please state your opinion there. thanks --Samuel Luo 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalism[edit]

Many people have repeatedly told you not to put junks or irrelevant things or personal stories on the article. Please refrain doing that. Thanks, Fnhddzs 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I do not consider it vandalism. Who is many people? The pro FLG nuts? What's the name of your master, oh sockbot? Cj cawley 00:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My tiger crane kung fu is better than your's. na, na, nana. Cj cawley 00:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on how to approach the FLG articles[edit]

Greetings. I'd like to ask you to participate in a more measured way on the FLG pages. All the related articles have been repeatedly spammed by FLG followers for a while now, especially since the White House shouting incident. As you may have noticed, several of us here aren't the biggest fans of Li Hongzhi & Co., but to struggle to the point of incurring sanctions over content in the article or sockpuppetry allows Li's followers to point their fingers and say "see, they are doing it too!" The last thing you want to do is feed a religious cult's martyr complex, as you probably know too well. Wikipedia policies grind slowly, but grind they do, and if the editors who want a balanced portrayal of FLG to inform and educate our readers stick to those policies, then eventually the force of consensus within those policies will provide a stable article that does just that. As we say in Taijiquan: "After a long period of silent memorisation and study, the point is reached where all of one's desires are met" and "To retreat is to advance and to advance is to retreat!"

Cheers, --Fire Star 火星 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am going to hammer them anyway. I may do it in a better way, but it's still a hammer. Cj cawley 00:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is Spain part of China?[edit]

SockBot, One of the references you deleted as invalid was from a Spanish Media source. People's Daily has been a world wide publication for years. Cj cawley 22:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling me a bot. It's not nice and, since you have absolutely no proof, it's a damn lie as well. CovenantD 13:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right once again. Demon seed would be a more accurate reference. You should be able to pull it off the movie database. It's a classic. Cj cawley 15:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks[edit]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. CovenantD 15:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, you're not a person. There is a high probablity that you are a sockbot. Just like F???. :)

As for my content, you keep pulling it with out reading it. In the case of the FLG it's the exact opposite. I will reference the story of Conan & Thulsa Doom. FLG is a good example. Cj cawley 16:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. CovenantD 17:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cj you are behaving in a rather uncivil manner, making personal attacks, accusing someone of not being a person, legal threats, and suggesting discrimination against Falun Gong members. --HResearcher 03:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st paragraph, intro, FG page[edit]

It is two hours before deadline, please discuss and vote. --Samuel Luo 02:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation[edit]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Fire Star 火星 14:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of Falun Gong's human rights in China[edit]

copied from Talk:Falun Gong

"According to the U.S. State Department's annual human rights report, Falun Gong prisoners are required to work long hours daily in "extrajudicial reeducation-through-labor camps." Others are placed in psychiatric facilities or special deprogramming centers. In addition, human rights groups allege that detainees are often deprived of food and water, are denied bathroom facilities, and are sometimes forbidden to sleep. The State Department report adds that several hundred Falun Gong adherents reportedly have died in detention due to torture, abuse and neglect." Brother's Plight Spurs Effort to Improve Human Rights in China by Kristie Lee, November 7, 2003, Duke University --HResearcher 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is invalid. It claims to be written by two different people in two different places & references a third for a contact. Next time you post something like that, you should at least get all of them on the same page in the same place.

Almost forgot, I will find out about reporting you to the Duke U. press.

Cj cawley 01:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cj, please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. --Fire Star 火星 02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cj cawley, I don't understand your threat to report me to the Duke University and am not bothered by it anyway. Yes, it's from Duke University, there's no legal problem in citing it. The article is valid, and the claims cited are supported by the U.S. State Department report. --HResearcher 03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom[edit]

Informal mediator Wiki eZach| talk is preparing to move the Falun Gong mediation case to the Wikipedia:Arbcom. I have been asked to alert concerned (to the best of my knowledge) editors about this matter. Thank you. --Fire Star 火星 22:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Falun Gong[edit]

Please refrain from aggressive and hostile talk as you have just done here. Also the ARBCOM case was turned down, so back to negotiation. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation[edit]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Falun Gong mediation[edit]

Hello, I'm sorry it's been awhile, but I recently agreed to mediate that case. I don't know if it's a stale issue, so it would be good if a few of you let me know whether or not mediation is still needed. Since there are so many of you, I'm going to assume that all of you agree to me mediating until and unless I am told otherwise. I'm also going to assume public mediation is fine, unless someone asks for private mediation, or I come to think private mediation might be better. I would, however, appreciate it if you just said something there to let me know if you are still around. Also, assuming you are still interested in mediation, please watchlist the page if you haven't already. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]