User talk:Ghostexorcist/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

My book on Kaifeng Jews

Let me first apologise for the great delay in answering your comments sent to me via “user talk” nearly half a year ago. Today was the first time that I looked at my user-talk for a very long time.

There is a publisher who would very much like to publish my book but at present has financial problems. However I have put the book in its entirety on my website for anyone to read. http://chaimsimons.net/Kaifeng.pdf

I do have a few quotes from “The Kaifeng Stone Inscriptions” I would very much like to have a copy of your review on it, My e-mail is chaimsimons@gmail.com

Also please let me know where Mr. Weisz mistranslated a key Chinese character. Simonschaim (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

The Bugle.png
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:1decheng 26 .JPG

Thanks for uploading File:1decheng 26 .JPG, which you've sourced to russbo.com. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

chinese scholars

During the 1920s, it was a trend among Chinese scholars to attack their own history, claiming that the Shang dynasty didn't exist, the old Confucian classics were all forged (all these scholars turned out to be wrong, big time), Zhou Xun is just another one of these scholars- it doesn't matter that he is writing from a western institution, I want a source by a non Chinese scholar that says the Kaifeng community is fake in order to consider it reliable. If you can find a western scholar you should replace Zhou Xun's reference with it. I know this is not in the rules or policies of Wikipedia but I feel apalled that Zhou Xun is given a platform on the article.

Zhou Xun only addresses jesuit accounts of the community, and does not bother explaining the existence of multiple jewish communities in Hangzhou, Ningxia, etc, neither does Zhou explain why judaism was specifically referred to by Genghis Khan in China, who called them "zhuhu", or accounts of protestant missionaries interviewing muslims who knew of the community.

DNA tests were done by the way, proving the Kaifeng community has jewish ancestry.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3590419,00.html

http://www.jewishtimesasia.org/main-news-topmenu-48/74-2007-04/271-chinese-government-conducts-dna-testing-on-kaifeng-jews

Page 15 of this article specifically mentions a Ming dynasty law/policy mentioning Judaism as part of a decree on religions. DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have studied the history of the Kaifeng Jews for many years, so I fully accept the fact that they are Jewish. In fact, the first half of my rather long research paper on the subject is going to be published in the August edition of China History Forum's Han Lin Journal later this month. But, as I stated in the edit summary, WP:NPOV demands that the article be balanced. Trying to discredit Zhou by connecting her to the activities of Chinese scholars from the past amounts to original research (I mean no offense). Even if you can find a document denouncing her paper on the Jews, it still shouldn't be erased. That document can be used to show that Zhou holds a minority view, thus balancing out the article even more. I have only seen one western scholar quote Zhou's article in a portion of a book on Jewish history. They also agreed the Kaifeng Jews were fake. I'll try to find that again if you are interested.
I once had discussion about the paper with a person on Youtube who thought the Kaifeng Jews were fake. You can view it here:
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=1qhhbx9jjN0
Search "ghostexorcist" and "lwglwglwg". The discussion goes top to bottom. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Madmonk03.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Madmonk03.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Dear Ghostexorcist.. regarding the message that I got asking me not to add the Tamil name for Bodhidharma, I just have a say. In a number of pages about various personalities, regardless of how many countries they have travelled and by any number of names they are known, not to mention the variety in the languages by which their names are known, I have noticed that in the first page, soon after their name is mentioned in English, their name is again repeated within brackets in the traditional language of the country to which they belong. To the right side of the page, below their image (if available), the various names in different languages are presented. In the similar way, since it is proved that Bodhidharma was a Brahmin King from Kanchipuram district in Tamilnadu, I thought it would be appropriate to include his name in Tamil language within brackets as per Wikipedia tradition. I'm not arguing but just trying to justify why I felt the name in Tamil language should be included. Please note that I'm from Kanchipuram district too in Tamilnadu and I had been practicing Kalaripayattu (that later came to be known as Kung-Fu) for nearly 10 years (till 2008) from a disciple of Bodhidharma (we keep Bodhidharma's statue made of cow dung in front of us while practicing). I'm not a paratrooper from US/UK writing about Guru Bodhidharma without even remotely associated to his teaching. And I'm not the kind that would keep re-posting an information again and again. Thanks. Victor williams 84 (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


If you check the edit history for the article, you will see a pattern of different IPs and newly established members (who only just happen to edit the Bodhidharma page) adding and re-adding Bodhidharma's Tamil name to the article without discussing it on the talk page. I have been an editor on Wikipedia since 2006, so this usually means that either one person is hopping IPs (i.e. sock puppetry) or several people are gang editing an article to get the information that they want added. You are the first person to actually comment about it (although you should have posted something to the talk I started).
As I stated before, his Tamil name keeps on getting removed because he is known by so many names around the world. You stated that other Wikipedia articles include multiple names for other historical personages in an info box, but always post their native name in the lede. That's normally true if they are concretely known to have come from that area. However, there is not enough historical information to say he really did come from Southern India. Most of what is known about him comes from Chinese records, and none of them agree with each other. There are some historians who think he really didn't have anything to do with Chan Buddhism, and there are others who don't even think he was a historical person. I took the liberty of looking at some of the sources from the article which support his Tamil origin. The Bodhidharma Anthology (p. 2) says he was from East India. The Zen Sourcebook: Traditional Documents From China, Korea, and Japan (p. 9) says “Because accounts of Bodhidharma’s life and teaching were generally written some time after his life, they are historically questionable; a few scholars have even wondered if he existed at all.” The author then goes on to mention how “later accounts” say he was the son of a monarch in Southern India. The Zen Experience (chapter 1) presents the “Zen legend” that Bodhidharma came from southern India. It also states that he stayed in the Shaolin Temple, which is not a reliable story. The first source mentioning him actually setting foot in Shaolin is from the 8th century. This of course postdates him by hundreds of years. Across the Himalayan Gap: An Indian Quest for Understanding China (p. 188) says he was the son of a king of Kanchi. The author later says, “The historicity of Bodhidharma has been controversial. The first mention of Kanchi is in “The Record of the Transmission of the Lamp” compiled in 1002." Again, this posdates his supposed life by hundreds of years. It is evident from these sources that his origin has not truly been established.
Also, it is important to note that there is zero historical evidence linking Bodhidharma to Kalaripayattu or Kung Fu. The only thing linking the two styles is legend. In fact, if you go to the bottom of the Bodhidharma article, you will read how the notion of him being the father of Chinese kung fu comes from a forged 17th century qigong manual, the Yijin Jing.
Lastly, you said "I'm not a paratrooper from US/UK writing about Guru Bodhidharma without even remotely associated to his teaching." You are implying that I do not have the right to write about Bodhidharma because I am not apart of his lineage. I'm afraid that I don't need a connection to him to write about him. This makes me an unbiased party. I don't have an emotional interest in the subject. Therefore, my editing falls within Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guideline. Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ghostexorcist. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thierry de Loos

Hello Ghostexorcist, as these in the WikiProject Military history / Crusades task force you could create the article Thierry de Loos. A greeting--Kardam (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Bodhidharma belongs to a Brahmin Family ?

I just want to clarify that my intention is not to create a spam or trouble. But to correct the history Whether Bodhidharma belongs to the Brahmin family is the main argument ? Let’s look at the citation you have given – it says as follows “Bodhidharma is said to have come from Brahman family in southern India and may even have been of royal family”

Please note here, it’s Brahman family and not Brahmin

But Wikipedia says it as “Brahmin family” – Brahmin means caste. And Brahman means holy. The citation says it as “holy family”, but when the Wikipedia article refers it as “Brahmin family” the meaning completely changes here

Wikipedia article goes on to say “Bodhidharma's royal pedigree implies that he was of the Kshatriya warrior caste”

How come he can belong to Brahmin caste as well as Kshatriya warrior caste ?

If you understand the Indian caste system, you can understand that these are two completely different caste. So, this article is misleading and those who read will get confused.

So, it is correct to just remove the word "Brahmin Family" which WILL confuse readers

My intention is only to correct the facts as i saw it as a mistake

Thamizhsasi (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please start a discussion on the Bodhidharma talk page so other editors can see why you do not think the material is valid. Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation

I'm glad the work is being appreciated. And thanks for the Barnstar; I really appreciate that. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Times Asia

If you register for an account (its free) you can see the original source cited at Jewish times Asia

http://www.jewishtimesasia.org/main-news-topmenu-48/74-2007-04/271-chinese-government-conducts-dna-testing-on-kaifeng-jews

A recent article that appeared in Hong Kong’s Chinese language paper, Ta Kung Po, makes reference to the municipal authority’s investigation into the legitimacy of the claims.

A report compiled in the 1980’s, by authorities in Kaifeng, references the use of DNA testing on ten families, including that of Zhao Pingyu. The results indicated that while these Jews intermarried, “the Jews who were in Kaifeng mainly came from the areas around the two rivers in Iraq. They were also quite close to those Jews in Armenia and the Arab world. A rough estimate was conducted by the authority in Kaifeng...there were 618 such people.”

The significance of these tests is that there is now apparently scientific proof to connect these people with their Jewish lineage.


"Ta Kung Po" is the original source, and it specifically names Zhao Pingyu.

The date of the Jewish Times Asia article is (Issue April 2007)

Kaefong (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, I've seen the full article before. The only problem is that ultimately there is no original source (i.e. a science paper reporting the findings). Prof. Xu Xin of Nanjing university, an expert on the Kaifeng Jews, has told me that no one takes that newspaper report seriously. In addition, these DNA tests were not mentioned in any of the numerous books I have on the subject. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Separate pages on Chán and Zen

Hi SudoGhost. I would like to start a separate page on Zen. See Talk:Zen#Proposal: separate pages for Chán and Zen. Could you please give your opinion? Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, little mistake. I've asked several Wikipedians their opninion; apparently I mixed up you and SudoGhost - but your opinion is very welcome too! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi GhostExorcist. I've already split the Zen-article to Zen and Chinese Chán. Also I added info the Japanese Zen page, which first redirected to Zen. My apologies for not awaiting your cooment; I'd already received comments from Peter Morrell, SudoGhost and Tulka800, who didn't object, but also adviced to have a general Zen-page, and specific Chinese Chán and Japanese Zen pages. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma

Enough! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, my attention is not with separating various ghosts... This one was also for SudoGhost. Sorry! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Scapegoat

Hello, Ghostexorcist. Regarding this edit of yours: My tongue was somewhat in my cheek, but the response should not have been removed on the grounds that it had "nothing to do with the question" (per your edit summary). The scapegoat is most assuredly associated with Judaism in general, as a peek at the scapegoat article, or a bible, will attest. Maybe not so much with Israel per se but the question was not just about Israel.

More particularly, is it really OK to just remove contributions by others that fail your personal appropriateness test? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You admit that it was tongue-in-cheek. Side conversations and nonconstructive comments are removed from the help desk all of the time. You'll notice that a lot of the stuff I removed was just purely silly material. I asked a serious question and I expect a serious answer on an encyclopedia. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I said it was "somewhat" tongue-in-cheek, in that, while I'd have been a little surprised if it was the answer you were expecting, it was still an answer that fitted the question as asked. Sometimes people say things in half-jest but are pleasantly surprised when it turns out to be exactly the answer the OP was after. I'm open-minded enough to such possibilities to sometimes proffer suggestions that I wouldn't necessarily bet $$ on but still might be somewhere in the ball park. Rules for brainstorming include withholding criticism. If I had meant it solely as a joke, I would have ended with a smiley or whatever. I know the rules at least that much, and you know I do.
Anyway, I won't take this any further but I will just state my view that the removal of my answer displayed an unseasonal narrow-mindedness, which your above response has only confirmed. Best wishes, and may your humbug be put out to pasture very soon. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:Civil. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't quote WP:Civil to me after your removal of my answer came with a justification it did not merit, as I have gone to some pains to explain above, which you appear to have completely ignored. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I quoted it because of the uncivil remarks in your previous comment. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I am also rather annoyed at the failure of your sense of humour. It makes me wonder what else you have deleted without mentioning it to the authors concerned, just because you couldn't see the funny side of it? If you find what I have written objectionable, then delete if you feel you must, but at least have the good manners to tell me why. Astronaut (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The edit summary I left explains why I deleted the comments. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Astronaut extends more latitude to you than I am prepared to, Ghostexorcist. He thinks it's ok for you to remove the contributions of others if it's objectionable to you and "if you feel you must". That's not the rule we've ever embraced on the Ref Desks. It is permitted to remove stuff that is obvious and intentional vandalism, or where OPs provide their personal email addresses, or where someone is offering legal or medical advice. If you were to remove all answers to Ref Desk questions that did not quite hit the mark, or were not sourced, or there was an element of humour, or which were in any other way not exactly and precisely what the OP wanted, you'd spend all day every day removing stuff. Material that you find in any way objectionable can be discussed at the talk page.
What's truly objectionable to me is your arbitrary decision to, effectively, rewrite history by making it appear I have never participated in the answering of your question. I have explained above how your assertion that my answer had "nothing to do with the question" is completely false, yet I see no acceptance of this from you. You just refer Astronaut once more to your edit summary, the one to which I have taken exception. But you don't seem to care about my exception to your action, which is odd since your action was based on your exception to my action. It looks like you just make up your own rules as you go along, without regard to anyone's else's opinion of them, and that is a terribly worrying development.
I tried to make my earlier remarks as civil as I could given my displeasure with your response, but in the interests of continuing dialogue I withdraw whatever incivility remains. I should explain I've spent most of my 8 years on Wikipedia being active on the Ref Desks, and I've hardly ever had any of contributions removed, so you can perhaps appreciate this sort of thing is very foreign to me, and strong reactions might be expected. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I've made my point and you have made yours. We will just have to agree to disagree. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Fine. In that case, since I do not accept your reason for removing my post, and since you accept my non-acceptance of it, I have restored it to its original location. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Do whatever you like. It's really not that important to me. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I came across this because I noticed the removal, and wanted to find out what had gone on. I am a little surprised by the whole thing, as I found Jack's comment very clever indeed, and even quotable. The discussion at the bottom about Australian symbols was clearly off-topic, however. In future, may I request you just collapse a discussion such as this without removing it, by putting it in a box, and politely asking people not to add to it? I for one enjoy reading the occasional off-topic discussion, and genuine jokes like Jack's should always be left. Putting something in a box is a very strong hint to people that they are straying, and it alerts everyone to what you have done, so they have the opportunity to disagree if they wish. It is also a good compromise between ignoring the problem and removing it. Let me know what you think, if you have a moment. IBE (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
A quotable joke doesn't equal a valid answer. Jokes are purely sideline material that don't further a discussion. I will take your advise, though, and collapse discussions next time I have this problem. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me, Ghostexorcist. Jokes may not answer the question, but they can attract interest, and if they don't turn into side discussions, make the atmosphere on the ref desks positive. I myself have found it miserable when people prolong discussions about religion and politics, but these are special cases. I have tried with these sorts of things to get people to read Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines so the irrelevant discussions don't get out of hand - I do not ignore these sorts of problems. The only other thing that has really caused trouble on the ref desks is people trying to bring questions down by being pedantic about the wording, which just interferes with people wanting to analyse and discuss the actual topic. Again, whenever possible, I have tried to stop this, without giving direct offence. I am thankful that you will try my suggestion, but at the same time, remember that it is a free service - no one gets paid for their contribution, so overall, it has to be socially positive, or people will disappear. Another possibility other than boxing side discussions is just to put a line (four dashes, - x4, I think) and asking people to put their separate comments below the line - it is unlikely to interfere with your question. Best wishes, IBE (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma's birthplace

Getting tired of it already? Could you please ad Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources to your watchlist? Here's the reason: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bodhidharma's birthplace. See also the history of that page. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

dissertation

Yes, but have little time at the moment; but am interested and sure we can work something out.--Radh (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Supplement to the Journey to the West (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Yang, Yin, Woodblock and Jurchen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

B/BS

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Possibly unfree File:CSS-2.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CSS-2.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Xiaolin Showdown

I went through the history and saw that you originally added the original research and verification notices. I want to clean up the article. Do you think you could read through the article for specific examples. I know it needs a lot of work, but I'd like to know where to start. Jay32183 (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Kaifeng map 1910.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kaifeng map 1910.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Kaifeng jews reading the torah.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kaifeng jews reading the torah.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)