User talk:Kauffner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Yule
I would like to know what source you refer to. And how an "overwhelming majority" (even ignorant perhaps) necessarily must be more important than the fact that Yule is not originally a Christian celebration. It is a fact that Christians have made efforts to dominate preceding cultural events. In the name of balance this is a very important matter to be pointed out. I am neither religious or atheist, but I dislike all, including sometimes also subtle, methods of changing history to what seems most suitable for popular conformity. --Profero 08:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] naming of Thai royals
You might want to be interested in the naming conventions on Thai royals, if you want to give in your input, [1]. Gryffindor 15:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Issue with the Sirindhorn article
On 7 March, you made a good comment on the Sirindhorn Talk page to an edit and comment made by User:Salapao. However, you did not revert her edit on the article page. I agree with you that User:Salapao should not have made her edit, but since the issue is controversial and I'm a Thai, this is something I can't touch with a ten foot pole. Could I ask that you consider making a change to that article? Patiwat 14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as you claim to be a native English speaker, you should go back and read Kauffner's edit to find out that he did not in any way disagree with that edit. He may not have agreed with my comment. Firstly, that comment (about her sexuality) is entirely unnecessary and unverified. It may or may not be true, but it is totally irrelevant. Secondly, Salapao did not write it as I borrowed her computer and did not sign off. Thirdly, I thank Kauffner for not reverting it and showing good judgment.
Mr Patiwat, I never insulted you or used personal attacks against you (sorry to bring this up in Kauffner's talk page, but if I could ask you to arbritrate). You, on the other hand, have accused me (by extension) of vandalism and personal attacks. In no instances have I ever vandalized and in no instances did I mean any personal insult to you. I attacked what you wrote in many articles with reason, but never did I say (or suggest) that you were stupid, etc. -A soon to be Wikipedia member.
[edit] Your edits to 300 (film)
Though I do not doubt your assertions on the historical accuracy of the movie and Sparta (including the Oracle as well as the killing of the wolf = killing of a slave), it would greatly benefit your edits in the future if you were to provide reliable sources for your statements. Otherwise, they may be removed. These are highly interesting allegations you are making, and I think it would very much improve the article if we were to include them, but unfortunately we as editors have to be very picky about this article, as it's under Peer Review and will hopefully be nominated for Good Article status in the near future. I hope you can help out. :) María: (habla conmigo) 12:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Global Warming
Here is a source where you can get the facts if you want them.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978
The evidence for global warming is substantial, and the opposition to the idea that humans influence the climate is almost entirely political. Do a google, and you will find that most articles against global warming are full of comments about "liberals" and "globalization" and the "world bank" and other subjects that have nothing to do with science, while most articles on the science of global warming do not mention unrelated political ideas at all. I know of only one scientist who thinks that humans do not influence climate change.
This is one of those subjects where only an expert can have an informed opinion. The rest of us have to relay on (or doubt) the experts. If we doubt the experts, it says more about how we react to authority than it says about the issue at hand. Rick Norwood 19:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] China India war
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/nov/06chin.htm
A 1962 PoW recounts how the war was a 'Planned' activity.
Mikeslackenerny 11:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unblock Request
- What happens when you attempt to edit without using a Tor proxy? Please try connecting at
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin rather than the standard login. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- You can't even read Wikipedia in China without TOR, never mind edit. I've tried the https thing already. The Chinese government has blocked it for several months now.Kauffner 09:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- You should still be able to read Wikipedia using TOR. Unfortunately, if we unblock the Tor proxies, they are used for large amounts of abuse, particularly by our more troublesome banned vandals. --Yamla 23:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You can softblock. I don't see why there would be any problem in that case.Kauffner 00:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Sourcing
You're doing really estimable work on a number of articles, but it would be even better if you were to develop the habit of providing sources for your claims. Obviously you get your facts from somewhere -- tell the world, and avoid getting into unproductive edit-&-delte cycles. DavidOaks (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Global Warming Talk page
Hi Kauffner, your comment on the Global Warming talk page has been removed because it adds nothing but your personal opinion on the subject. Global warming is a hot topic. To not transform the talk page to a general message board about the topic, comments like yours may be removed.
However, feel free to suggest any improvements of the main article. Regards, Splette :) How's my driving? 01:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop adding irrelevant messages to this article's talk page. Also, please be aware of the three-revert rule. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Re. [2]: I can, and I will. Please stop arbitrarily deleting other peoples contributions in violation of WP:TPG and WP:POINT. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of "cooling denier"
A tag has been placed on "cooling denier", requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Jb0007 (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I have not deleted your article, but moved it to Cooling denier, with conventional article caps and without the quotation marks. The article does not meet the criterion for which it was tagged. I would like to ask you to take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, though, and to consider if there is something that might be done to bring this particular stub into line with encyclopedic standards. I believe that it may be more appropriate for inclusion on wiktionary, particularly as the term does not even appear in the since source cited on the page. If you'd like to discuss my rationale with me, feel free to let me know at my talk page. I am also for now watching the article in case I can be of assistance there. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Cooling denier
An article that you have been involved in editing, Cooling denier, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooling denier. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
[edit] Advice
I don't suppose you want my advice, but I shall give it anyway. Feel free to delete after reading.
You clearly have strong opinions on global warming. But edits like this [3] aren't going to help you or your cause. If you want to write that kind of stuff, get a blog.
To point out the obvious: if you provide a link to your shiny new article, then it should be no surprise that people follow you to it; and complaints like this [4] make no sense to me.
Meanwhile, please be aware of WP:3RR which you must be fairly close to on t:GW by now William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- So you delete all my posts and you don't feel any need to explain why. If I complain about your deletions, you write as if I have committed an additional offense. How do I get a gig like yours? Kauffner (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I gave you an edit summary. And Stephan has explained, above. If it confused you, then I'm sorry. But the t:GW is long enough without blog postings being added William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Is this a joke? I hope you realize that there is no actual WP:WASTEOFTIME criteria for speedy deletion. I'm wasting your time? No one asked you follow me around Wikipedia. I disrupted Wikipedia by creating an article? This one is just so silly, I don't know where to begin. The thing was approved by an admin! Kauffner (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The article was clearly going to die; further discussion was pointless. Meanwhile... I hope you can put this unffortunate episode behind you and continue productive editing. Best wishes William M. Connolley (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
 |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| For your valiant attempts at implementing a "Global Cooling Denier" article. Yllie (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC) |
[edit] June 2008
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. VegitaU (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Warning on 9/11
 |
You have recently edited Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks in a manner that transgresses the arbitration decision reached. Please do not add disruptive information or comments related to the promotion of conspiracy theories to the September 11, 2001 attacks article or its talk page. These issues have all been raised in the past and reviewed by administrators. Continuation of this behavior will result in the imposition of discretionary sanctions that include being banned from editing this article or being blocked entirely for a short period of time. Please refrain from repeating these actions again. Thank you. |
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.
[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter
| The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
[edit] RfD nomination of Allah lover
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. VegitaU (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
