User talk:Paul 012
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paul_012. |
Contents |
[edit] Dhammakaya
Thank you for noticing the dhammakaya entry's neutrality issues, I was unsure on how to bring that up since I'm new to editing Wikipedia. I just figured I'd link some relevant legitimate media sources at the bottom to spur notice. Quincetessence 04:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps changing the Dhammakaya entry and deleting my links without providing reasons to do so in the talk page. I have mentioned it on the talk page, but do you know of any way to discourage this behavior? Quincetessence 22:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Information request
Thanks for the information on the Thai senate! AxelBoldt 17:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Personal attacks
การทำหน้าที่อีดิทข้อความเรื่องธรรมกายต้องไม่มีอคติในการทำหน้าที่นะครับ และเท่าที่ติดตามพฤติกรรมคุณเห้นว่าผิดจรรยาบรรณอย่างมากมาย คุณไม่ควรทำตัวเช่นนั้น เพราะมันจะกลายเป้นว่าคุณกำลังอาศัยความเป้นเจ้าหน้าที่อาสาสมัครที่มีมลทินในการทำหน้าที่ หากคุณขยันหาลิงคืมาใส่ คุณก็ไม่ควรหาแต่ที่เขาเขียนโจมตีวัดด้วยความชั่วร้ายของสื่อบางสำนัก หากคุณยังทำตัวอย่างนี้อีกเห้นทีคงต้องแจ้งไปยังผู้รับผิดชอบให้ตัดคุรออกจากทีมงานอีดิทแล้วหละ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.72.108.19 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC).
Hi again. I notice you got a message from an anonymous user as well. Despite being fully fluent in Thai, my literacy is kind of weak, I was wondering if you can help me read and translate the text on both your talk page and my talk page? I get that it's asking why I'm editing, but I'm having trouble reading the rest of it.Quincetessence 18:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thai monarchy
Sawatdeekrab Paul - I am pleased to discover a Thai wikipedian who is also a native English speaker. I am an Australian historian who comes to Thailand regularly and I have written a number of articles on Thai topics, including most of the content of History of Thailand. Being here just after the royal jubilee has made me think and read more about the Thai monarchy, and I have been visting some royal sites here in Bangkok this week. (see my photos here.) I have also been reading Ka F Wong's Visions of a Nation and using it as a guidebook to royal statuary. I have now visited Rama I at the Rama I Bridge, the equestrian Rama V at Royal Plaza, the gold Rama IV at Wat Bowonivet and Rama VIII at Wat Suthat. I had already visited Rama VI in Lumphini Park and Rama VII at the National Assembly. Still on my list is King Taksin's statue over the river. All of these statues are being actively worshipped - vis this photo of a woman praying in front of Rama V. I presume (correct me if I'm wrong), that Thais do not worship the kings literally as gods, but rather in the same way they worship Buddha, as a hypostasis: a representation which possesses supernatural qualities and through which they can communicate with the supernatural world. I am thinking of an article on the Cult of Thai Royalty, discussing both its religious and political dimension, and examining to what extent the royal cult has been deliberately manufactured by earlier regimes to bolster their own legitimacy. I was very struck by the absence of the monarchy from the iconography at the Democracy Monument (also my article). This is my thesis: Phibun's objective was to promote a cult of the military as the embodiment of the nation and guardians of democracy. The royal cult seems to have been a product of the Sarit-Thanom years, and no doubt it served its purpose at that time. But since 1973, and particularly since 1992, the military has totally lost credibility in that regard, and the royal cult that they themselves created has overtaken them, so that the monarchy has now come to be seen as the repository of national virtue and the protector of democracy - hence the anti-Thaksin forces wrapping themselves literally in the royal banner. This may also explain the Crown Prince's unpopularity - he is seen as a professional soldier rather than as royalty. Your comments welcome. (I am here until Sunday by the way.) Adam 06:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] {{Thai Royal Family}}
Re: [1]. Nicely done! :) --Durin 16:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] {{wrong-license}} for Image:Pantip stair.jpg ??
Why is that? --HAH 09:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently User:Jarcje has uploaded multiple images, none of which he cares to clarify the authorship that he claims. Some of them are obvious copyright violations, and the meta info of many indicate that they were taken with many cameras indeed. I suspect he may not be thoroughly honest with the license tags. Paul C 15:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Images uploaded by Thai history 0102
Hello, Paul. I see you have tagged Image:Jumlong S.jpg, Image:Sondhi L.jpg, and Image:Mob-protest.jpg, all uploaded by Thai history 0102, with {{wronglicense}}. I was just wondering what reasons you had for doing so; I can't easily find these images with Google Image Search, which is my usual method for investigating dubious self-authorship claims. Also, is there a particular reason you have not tagged Image:Somsak.jpg, the only other image uploaded by this user? —Bkell (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Jumlong S.jpg and Image:Sondhi L.jpg weren't hard to find; Image:Somsak.jpg I simply missed the first time. If you look at Thai history 0102's talk page and logs, you'll see he has uploaded multiple images with unspecified sources and copyright problems, most of which have been deleted, leading to my reservation about his claims of authorship. Paul C 06:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A request for assistance
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Help then
I don't know who deleted all those pages, it really better not be you. But well, I'd just like to say, you try to find such amazing pictures and get it on that site, becasue I've been trying to build it for about a month. And wikipedia's disregard for the Bangkok website is p*ssing me off, its been about a year since I last saw something new on that site, because about 80% of the article now, is in my words. So why dont you put some pictures up there brother Paul. —The preceding Jiverage69 16:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Its ok, its just that its getting frustrated. I understand about the copyright violations, its just I really don't have time to email the guys who took these pictures n etc. and really arrange them one by one over a lousy copyright--i know its not. Most of these pictures are however pictures taken from a forum, so its known that another forumer will take it. Some of them are copyrighted whilst others are those of like the BkkIFF, for an event. Maybe you could, (and i'm being serious here) help take care of the pictures of the Bangkok website, seeing how you have edited so many sites. Could you? It'd be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Jiverage69 17:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, thanks for the insight on the 'free' thing. Anyways, what i'd like to know also is that why would pictures from discussion forums be unallowed. Because most of them are just skyscraper enthusiasts who every now and then take pictures to basically, wat can i say, umm, give a better image of Bangkok's skyline and etc. They are not photographers of great skill , some are but not the ones i took from. Btw, you seem to be a very intellectual university so may I ask, where do study? Chula? THammasat? Don't take that the wrong way if your not in them. Jiverage69 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Why'd u delete the pictures? I don't mean to amke a fuss about it but its a god*amn picture that fits perfectly into the article and its a shame that we have some people that feel that its a violation of copyright. The picture was never for sale and never copyrighted therefore you shouldn't have the right to process it for speedy deletion. I worked my *ss off for setting such a nice page. So reconsider your stand on this whole copyright infringement/violation bull. Look at all the other pages on wikipedia.
[edit] Wikiproject notices
I am so sorry. Thank you, I will correct it.
[edit] ref desk
see comment on my talk page. --Parker007 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] สวัสดีครับ
Hello, Mr. Paul. I am the writing in the topic of Naradhiwas University but I have a problem. First time I wrote it, I incorrectly spelled the name of the university "Princess of Narathiwat University". Now I have checked again the correctly name is "Princess of Naradhiwas University". So, can I change the all of incorrect names to the right names because some paragraphs link from another page that incorrect name.
Thank you.
