Jump to content

User talk:Clftruthseeking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.21.214.210 (talk) at 09:05, 29 August 2016 (→vandalism.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Regarding your use of the prod tag

Hi, the tag you were using was to delete the entire article. If you feel that the section should be changed, and you have Reliable Sources that back up those changes you are free to make them yourself. Unomi (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your use of the prod tag

I have responded to this on your talk page, Unomi. Clftruthseeking (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choy Li Fut

If it may refer to multiple things Cai Li Fo or Choy Li Fut then a WP:disambiguation page woudl be the bet idea. --Nate1481 08:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Doc-Fai

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wong Doc-Fai, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.whitelionsofshaolin.com/Lineage-GrandmasterWongDocFai.htm. 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. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wong Doc-Fai

A tag has been placed on Wong Doc-Fai requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove copyvio tags and leave the copyright material. Even with your citations it was still copyright from a website. I've stripped the lead down, please do not restore the copyright material. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhidharma and martial arts

There is no historical evidence that Bodhidharma had any connection to Shaolin martial arts. In fact, prior to the 17th century, the monks worshiped the Buddhist-Guardian deity Vajrapani as the progenitor of their martial skills. Check out this section of the Chinese martial arts talk page and the Vajrapani article. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is surprising. Have you traveled to the Shaolin temple near Deng Feng, China?Clftruthseeking (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had the chance yet. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would urge you to investigate the evidence on site. It has quite an impact on ones understanding of the relationships. The ancient carvings in stone of the eight pieces of brocade and moves still seen in the 18 Lohan movements. So I have a better understanding, are you suggesting that the monks had developed these forms solely from their adoration of Vajrapani? I try to remain open to new information, but to discount the legend/myth of Bodhidarma seems extreme.Clftruthseeking (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prof. Meir Shahar and countless other scholars--Western, Chinese, and Japanese--have thoroughly disproven Bodhidharma's connections to Shaolin martial arts via study of original historical documents, Ming and Qing training manuals, and stelae. I really recommend his book.
The original legend from the Yi Jin Jing states Bodhidharma left behind two training manuals that were discovered after his death. The legend of him teaching the monks physical exercises did not come about until the early 20th century. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cai li fo

Hello, I see you added {{editsemiprotected}} to this article's talk page. {{editsemiprotected}} is only for requesting an appropriately permitted user edit a semiprotected page; it is not the correct method to request semiprotection. For that, go to WP:RFPP; however, as I stated on the talk page, based on the page history, were I an administrator, I would quickly decline this request. Cheers, Intelligentsium 03:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would decline the request for protection because protection, even semiprotection, is akin to blocking users; it prevents anonymous users from making potentially good edits. While vandalism can be reverted and vandals blocked within seconds, good contributions are not so easily recovered. Therefore, protection must be dealt abstemiously and only when absolutely necessary. Intelligentsium 23:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, the request is not to "block" anyone, but to make the editor accountable. Positive and useful information is always welcome. The situation with this particular page is there has been a strident effort to make it neutral and complete. However, it has been attacked recently by anonymous user with an IP address out of Italy. At first, the person removed one individual's name. Then it was a few names followed by a minor editing war (more of a skirmish). The most recent attack, again from Italy (most likely a dynamic IP address) deleted an entire paragraph; which was reversed. The response was deletion and the alteration of a persons name written in chinese characters turning the name into an insult and its meaning. These are the finer points that you are not aware of which prompted the request. The hope is to semi-protect the page in order to reduce the potential for destructive behavior, not useful additions. Thank you for your opinion, however, it is based on an uninformed foundation. I am copying this entire response to place on your talk page for easy reference.Clftruthseeking (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have misunderstood. I am comparing protection to blocking, because they serve more or less the same purpose: preventing a user or users/IPs from editing. Whenever an administrator considers a request for protection, they must weigh the potential for good edits being prevented against vandals being impeded. For this reason, only extreme levels of vandalism (such as this) warrant even semiprotection. The linked article was only protected for one week. If vandalism persists, please consider filing at WP:AIAV; however, this is only for blatant vandals. Intelligentsium 00:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Thank you for the clarification.Clftruthseeking (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huo Xin for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I was mistaken, have a beer and a slice on me. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope the next time we cross paths, it is in a joint effort to stop vandalism.Clftruthseeking (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think we all need to help REAL vandalism. My philosophy is rather to semi-protect the page for a short time to verify and hold the vandal responsible. I feel that letting it start in the first place is just an open invitation to allow it to get more serious.

Huo Xin (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the banner! Now that's totally cool!
Huo Xin (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cai li fo

Thanks for your message, Clftruthseeking. Essentially, any time there is a significant amount of text or a significant statement made, there should be an in-line reference using the <ref> and </ref> code, otherwise someone could be adding 'information' that cannot be verified. Note that the tags I added each refer to one section, not the whole article. The tags are not saying that the article (as a whole) has no references or has poor references, just that certain sections need more references. If those references are already in the reference list, it is easy to use them more than once (across multiple locations) in the same article. Here is how to do it:

  • You need to give a name to the reference the first time you cite it in the article, using <ref name="Ref1">the reference</ref>.
  • Any time after that, you can use <ref name="Ref1"/> and an extra link to the same reference will appear.
  • One thing you have to be careful about, of course, is that you do not give two different references the same ref name.

You might like to try the procedure above on the article; be sure to edit the entire article when you try this the first time (not just a section), so that when you preview your changes, it will show the updated reference list. If you are unsure about anything, feel welcome to post here again. Incidentally, for the description line for edits in an article, the four tildes (~~~~) do not work as a sign off; you only need to sign off on comments you post on discussion pages. Trust this all helps. Janggeom (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note; good to know the information has been of help. All the best for your work on improving the article. I think that with sufficient referencing and a bit of copy-editing, it should be ready for assessment for C class. Janggeom (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ref info!

I couldn't figure out how to do multiple references to the same source until you sent me the info. I tried to do it, but the wiki kept giving me errors. I found out that you have to give the original reference a number first, then you can use it later. I will give it a try again today. Thanks! Huo Xin (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Arts WikiProject Participants

Hello, please add your name to the list of active WPMA participants if you are participating. Thanks for your work so far. Janggeom (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cailifo

Not a problem at all. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 03:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wong_Doc-Fai

The article Wong_Doc-Fai has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

August 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing Your deletion of information on the Choy Li Fut page has now been reverted. You should stop vandalising this page. If you have issue with this please talk with me.

This quick case is open.

HEADER

This quick case is open.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clftruthseeking&oldid=736705758"