Hitman047
Welcome!
Hello, Hitman047, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! VanTucky 21:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Chinese martial arts
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Chinese martial arts, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. VanTucky 21:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, in agreement with the above, your edits to assert that Bodhidharma invented kung fu at the martial arts article are in aid of a legendary story, not verifiable history. We can report the legend, but not as a ironclad truth. See WP:NPOV, WP:REF and WP:TRUTH for further perspectives on these issues. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Second warning
editPlease do not continue to add unsourced material to Wikipedia, including your latest reversions without discussion of the removal of such material, or you will eventually run into administrator sanctions, up to and including being blocked from editing. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
@Bradeos Graphon: I have made a comment on your talkpage. Please refer to that!
- Greetings. My first "warning" was my first message (below VanTucky's) asking you to source your edits, and not to revert back to your version of an article without discussion. Your editing pattern is a familiar one that we've seen for a long time on Wikipedia. We have discussed these issues for a while, if you'll look throught the various page histories. You are of the opinion that there was no Aryan invasion of India 3,000 years ago and that Bodhidharma brought martial arts to China. Those opinions are fine, and may be true for all I know, but a long standing consensus on Wikipedia is that such opinions cannot be reported as "truth". They can be reported, but they have to be sourced and the language has to be qualified, because there is a lot of scholarly opposition to them. That is just the way it goes, Wikipedia isn't the place to argue opinions, just to reliably report them, and while my messages (and myself) are meant to be friendly, they are still advice progressing to warnings from a Wikipedia administrator in that regard. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hello again. For information on the Wikipedia debate over the Aryan invasions - out of India argument please see [1]. There is a long history of people on both sides of the issue working together more or less successfully to produce a nice article. Myself, I have an opinion (of course), but it is irrelevant to our purposes. I do agree that the edit you removed about calling the proto-Indians of 3,000 years ago a branch of Europeans is not tenable. At any rate, hang in there, and I'll see about that branch of Europeans thing. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Someone had already removed it, but I went through the Shaolin Monastery article anyway and redid a lot of it to make it more academic and less promotional. It certainly isn't perfect yet, but at least it may serve as an example of what I was talking about. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I realise that my opinion is only an opinion. I think it was a cultural diffusion thing, Sanskrit is obviously related to Greek, Latin, Celtic, Tocharian, etc., so what happened? There are authors on both sides of the story whom I find credible. We may never "know" for sure... A similar thing has happened with the replacement of Celtic languages by Germanic in Britain. Recent DNA evidence suggests that the Anglo-Saxons didn't even begin to replace the British population, yet their language and culture certainly did. That is one impressive cultural diffusion, if that's what happened. Cheers, --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Someone had already removed it, but I went through the Shaolin Monastery article anyway and redid a lot of it to make it more academic and less promotional. It certainly isn't perfect yet, but at least it may serve as an example of what I was talking about. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hello again. For information on the Wikipedia debate over the Aryan invasions - out of India argument please see [1]. There is a long history of people on both sides of the issue working together more or less successfully to produce a nice article. Myself, I have an opinion (of course), but it is irrelevant to our purposes. I do agree that the edit you removed about calling the proto-Indians of 3,000 years ago a branch of Europeans is not tenable. At any rate, hang in there, and I'll see about that branch of Europeans thing. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
March 2008
edit
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to User talk:Bradeos Graphon. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Will (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)