User talk:Kalona Constantine

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Revert
Your recent edit to the Chinese martial arts article was reverted because scholars have thoroughly proven that Bodhidharma had no historical connection to Shaolin martial arts. Please see the discussions here, here, and here for more details. Basically, the source of the attribution is the Yijin Jing, which was written in 1624. As far back as the 9th century, the Shaolin monks attributed their skills to the Vajrapani Bodhisattva. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Please refrain from deleting sourced material from a page like you did on Asian martial arts (origins). This is the third time you have been warned about this. The other two (here and here) being on your anon I.P. account. You have also been warned about this in an ongoing discussion on Talk:Chinese martial arts several times. If you remove the material again, I will contact an admin. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not deleted sourced material, what i deleted were the numerous repetitions of said sourced material. the statement that the yi jin jing is false and has been discredited by numerous scholars stands. a detailed argument's of why exactly the yi jin jing is the devil incarnate is simply unnecessary unless you think everyone is going to disagree and we need to convince them not to listen to the evil booklet. it is also irrelevant in an article titled Asian Martial arts( origins) already a huge and complex topic there's no need to add lengthy paragraphs as to why one book out of millions written is not to be believed. also the deleted paragraph in your words is "a summary of the argument" as I'm sure you must be aware for there to be an argument there must be a disagreement there must be two sides, when no one claims that the yi jin jing is accurate, no counter claims then how exactly do you come up with your argument?