User talk:MrGerLib

Welcome!

Hello, MrGerLib, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! GiantSnowman 08:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Getting started

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

Finding your way around

• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

Editing articles

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Wikipedia etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

GiantSnowman 08:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Very helpful resources. MrGerLib (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi GiantSnowman,

Just wondering if you have any cheat sheets or tips for creating new articles, other than the Article Wizard? Thanks. MrGerLib (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

August 2026

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Falun Gong, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

If you read the talk page discussions, I am protecting the neutral point of view of the article. The Dharma-ending period section of Falun Gong has both sides of views on this issue. But the edit I reverted and you restored presents only one-sided view in the first paragraph of the lead, that is rather a violation of WP:NPOV. Moreover, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content." per WP:ONUS. MrGerLib (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, the edit I reverted and you restored includes Wikipedia:SYNTH and misrepresentation of the sources. It has been removed from the lead by the OP. See this talk page thread Talk:Falun Gong#Revert in lede about the Fa. MrGerLib (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I see you're still at the POV pushing on the Falun Gong page. I'd suggest you give it a rest. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

It is not "adding helpful information" to hide evidence of their apocalypticism. Simonm223 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand. How could "helpful information" on karma, reincarnation, and reaping what one sows hide evidence of apocalypticism? Can you explain a bit more? MrGerLib (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It's what you're deleting in that edit that I take issue with. Simonm223 (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I see. You mean the words "of human civilization." I think that is just a copyediting issue. The first sentence of the "Dharma-ending period" section already has "the destruction and renewal of human civilization." If we keep "of human civilization" in the second sentence after adding "renewal" (which goes together with destruction in sources), it just feels redundant. I don't mind including it, though. I list the first two sentences together below. See if you also feel that it is redundant.

Numerous scholars including David Ownby, Helen Farley, Benjamin Penny, and David Palmer characterized some aspects of Li's teachings as apocalyptic, including beliefs concerning the destruction and renewal of human civilization. David Ownby wrote that Li asserted that there have been "certain signs" that made him predict that another cycle of destruction and renewal of human civilization was "imminent".

MrGerLib (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Courtney Grace (October 21)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, DylanMReed, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for creative professionals. The draft requires:

• evidence that the subject meets the general criteria for inclusion;
• or evidence that the subject meets any of the specific criteria for creative professionals;
• or multiple published secondary sources that cover the subject or their work and:
  • provide critical attention: professional reviews, excluding user reviews from the general public;
  • are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
  • are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

It is often easier to prove the notability of a creative work than of a person. If the person is not yet notable, but their work has received multiple in-depth professional reviews, consider writing about the work instead.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Courtney Grace to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For answers to frequently asked questions see Frequently asked questions.
• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Dylan Reed (Ping me) 05:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, MrGerLib! Having a draft declined at Articles for creation can be disappointing, but don't be discouraged, it's common when creating your first article. Need help? For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know. To understand why your draft was declined, please read the reviewer's feedback and follow any links to help pages you've been given. If you're still confused, try asking for advice at the Articles for creation Help desk. For peer support regarding all other editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a friendly question and answer hub for new editors. We'd love to see you there! Dylan Reed (Ping me) 05:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dylan, thank you for the review and the feedback. Reading the notability criteria, I understand my draft might not satisfy the specific criteria for creative professionals. But I think it satisfies the 3rd option of "multiple published secondary sources that cover the subject or their work and: provide critical attention; are reliable; are independent."

In the draft article, I cited Deadline, RogerEbert.com, Variety, Slate, People via Yahoo Entertainment, TheWrap, NBC News. All these sources are independent reliable sources. All articles are about Courtney Grace specifically, as one can tell from their titles. They should qualify the criterion of significant coverage WP:SIGCOV, IMHO.

I'd appreciate it if you could help me understand why these sources don't meet the requirement of "multiple published secondary sources that cover the subject or their work and: provide critical attention; are reliable; are independent." Thank you! MrGerLib (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

All sources are about Disclosure Day. And RogerEbert.com, Yahoo News are not reliable. You should use references in Filmography table. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 23:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dylan Reed, I added a People magazine article about Courtney Grace's role as Courtney Sinclair in season 5 of Netflix's Sweet Magnolias. Also, the Deadline article is about her signing with Gersh for representation in all areas, though the title still mentions Disclosure Day. Would these two sources provide enough coverage beyond Disclosure Day?

I also added references in the Filmography table. The Yahoo News article is actually a People magazine article, so I changed the reference to the original source. Regarding RogerEbert.com, I couldn't find it in WP:RSP. I couldn't find any discussion about it in WP:RSN either. I saw many film related pages use the source. If there has been any discussion about its reliability in a film-related project, please let me know. Thank you. MrGerLib (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I have seen the improvement. But you need to remove rogerebert.com from reference as it is not reliable source.

Please just add two reviews for her two roles with reliable sources. I am suggesting you thius because, that would help the article to easy pass at AfD. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 06:55, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DylanMReed, I removed rogerebert.com from the article draft, and replaced it with the LA Times and Vulture's reviews. I couldn't find reviews of her new roles yet. In the Subsequent Roles section, I only have the People magazine article about her role in season 5 of Netflix's Sweet Magnolias, and the Deadline article about her signing with Gersh and her role in Ally Clark. Are these good enough? Thanks. MrGerLib (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Looks better. You can resubmit. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 04:29, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Dylan. Appreciated it. I just resubmitted it. MrGerLib (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

October 2026

I was told to keep primary conduct concerns separate from the RS noticeboard so am addressing it here.

In regards to your recent reply, there is no acceptable excuse for misquoting Ownby to omit that Ownby did mention how Li teaches about the end times will come. This tactic is prolific and I do not want to put up with that. I fear if I am constantly dealing with that alone, I will have to raise this in Ani if this occurs consistently in future threads.

Btw first time I was on RS noticeboard, the group hovering at FG (you know them) tried to tell me that Li wasn't anti-scientific because Ownby said that. It later turned out in the end, they falsely misquoted him.

Ownby quote: One of Li Hongzhi’s favorite themes is that of modern science. Again and again in his lectures, he returns to the limitations of the scientific paradigm and the blind arrogance of the world scientific community. Not that Li’s vision is antiscientific or necessarily antimodern in the way that, say, some Mennonites’ world views might be understood to be. On the contrary, Li claims to speak the language of modern science and seems quite content that his followers take advantage of all that modern science has to offer—indeed, without modern telecommunications, most notably the Internet, Falun Gong most certainly would not have achieved its present form.

Any neutral or competent editor with a fair grasp on English can tell that Ownby was saying that Li was highly critical of Modern science and calling it limited and arrogant, but not so much to extent of being like the Amish-level - where he still likes to benefit from the fruits of modern science despite criticising it as flawed and inferior to Falun Gong.

Yet the pattern is the usual Falun Gong article editors seemed more interested in presenting an inaccurate impression of him and misquoting Ownby. I hope you can understand why such questionable reasoning made it extremely hard for me to take you guys seriously whenever it seems that you do this.

And I thought it was fairly obvious why I sought out input at a RS noticeboard. After we already discussed this at length, I went to noticeboard to seek at least one actual legitimate in-depth third opinion to weigh in that wasn't involved.

I hope you can understand I didn't come there for a debate but for honest feedback on whether an absolute statement is factual, that is not from you or me, but from wider community that supposedly has neutral competent editors patrolling there.

I can't stop you from replying there but others would think the thread has been answered or responded to and then be less likely to comment. And it just be you constantly denying that Li predicted doomsday scenario/end times for our future and me disagreeing.

I wish for a resolution and seems the last possible avenue is rFC. If it does come to that, please do not misquote Ownby via omission. If we have a rfc, I can agree to both mention that Ownby said that Li didn't emphasize Apocalyptic themes before the crackdown but nonetheless still teaches that he believes an end time is imminent. And then ask others if the absolute statement (anecdotal claims from unnamed practitioners) saying that Li ALWAYS discourages predicting doomsday scenarios for our future is acceptable. I think if you are truly confident in your position, you support that fair RFC and respect the wide consensus that results from it. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

As I replied on WP:RSN, I was quoting from Ownby's 2008 book. That is the exact quote in its full context. I didn't omit anything. You quoted a 2007 article by Ownby. They are similar, but not exactly the same.

As I mentioned to you before , we are not the arbiters of truth. We present what RSes say proportionally to their weights. If RSes differ, we present the difference, instead of arbitrating who is right and who is wrong. MrGerLib (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2026 (UTC)