Jump to content

User talk:Kauffner: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
EdwardsBot (talk | contribs)
354,693 edits
Reedmore (talk | contribs)
47 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
==Democratic-Republicans==

The problem with the wiki article is it should be named Jeffersonian Republicans. Best I could tell from the history there was an edit war about it. Rather than reignite that I had posted and sourced that the name Democratic-Republicans wasn't used as the party name until Jackson and historians have applied it retroactively. People deleted it and my sourcing because it was in the lede, but it's factually correct. It is incorrect to say Jefferson formed the Democratic-Republican party. People are conflating his party with the "Democratic-Republican Societies" around Jefferson's time, but those societies and the D/R label fell out of favor after the Whiskey Rebellion. FYI: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/andrewjackson

== Nzareth ==
== Nzareth ==


Revision as of 16:48, 21 August 2010

Democratic-Republicans

The problem with the wiki article is it should be named Jeffersonian Republicans. Best I could tell from the history there was an edit war about it. Rather than reignite that I had posted and sourced that the name Democratic-Republicans wasn't used as the party name until Jackson and historians have applied it retroactively. People deleted it and my sourcing because it was in the lede, but it's factually correct. It is incorrect to say Jefferson formed the Democratic-Republican party. People are conflating his party with the "Democratic-Republican Societies" around Jefferson's time, but those societies and the D/R label fell out of favor after the Whiskey Rebellion. FYI: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/andrewjackson

Nzareth

Hi,

Would you like to join the discussions again at the Nazareth page? Renejs has set himself on a mission to dedicate the article towards the theory that Nazareth did not exist. Although I am not against including the theory per wp:fringe, his POV pushing (inline with his website on the topic), and claiming that it is the most enduring debate on the topic is clearly giving it wp:undue weight. --Ari (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


China in Vietnam

On the talk page of the Vietnam War page you said, "There were 300,000 Chinese troops in North Vietnam at one point. They were pulled out after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, which caused the Chinese to switch their support to the Khmer Rouge." Did you mean that they pulled out in 1968 or after 1968 started to pull out? I'm working on the 1970 in the Vietnam War article and I have 1970 as the pull out based on this quote, "The PLA withdrew its antiaircraft artillery units in March 1969 and its support troops by July 1970." from Pg 206 - A history of the modern Chinese Army By Xiaobing Li -- Esemono (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that Mao decided to pull the Chinese troops out in response to the 1968 Soviet invasion. I assume Li's dates represent when the last unit was finally pulled out. The withdrawal was in preparation for the Zhenbao Island clashes, which were in March and September 1969. My source is Mao by Chang and Halliday. Kauffner (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vietnam#Diacritics that you may wish to to contribute to. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've cleaned up the "In a nutshell" section in the diacritics discussion. When you get the chance, please indicate your support or opposition to each consensus point to allow us to determine which points have the most support. I've also added a note to the effect that, for now, these points do not constitute a formal proposal, but just indicate where we're at in our discussion. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huma Abedin

Hi - I see that you have re-added to this article a sentence which I removed on BLP grounds. I still don't think it belongs there, but I won't revert until there's a clear consensus on it. To get further input, I've posted about the article on the BLP noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Huma Abedin. Your comments there are welcome. Robofish (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations

I've removed this edit [1] where you are clearly making unsourced suggestions about someone's sexuality. You will be blocked if you continue to make such suggestions. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose the BLP noticeboard if possible BLP violations cannot be discussed there? If you follow Wiki rules strictly, it should all be about properly summarizing reliable sources. But as the Huma Abedin discussion shows, my advocacy within the rules didn't impress anyone as a practical matter. Nor should it. The substance of the allegations and whether they are plausible or not needs to be addressed as well. This was the purpose of the paragraph you removed.
Even though Weiner is caressing his knee with both hands, it’s out of bounds for me to imply that the picture looks gay? In case you think I’m cherry picking, Weiner also has a knee-caress photo on his homepage. (You have to look at that one a little more carefully to notice it.) Skinny people aren’t necessarily gay, but the linked story emphasizes this word in a wink-wink way. "Skinny" was used in this sense on a famous Seinfeld episode. If the writer wanted to avoid this suggestion, he could have used "thin" or some other word. I can't be the only one who thinks the "Weiner Beaner" nickname is a gay reference. At very least, the author must be aware of the Weiner/Schumer rumors and has decided not to discourage them. Kauffner (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it is contentious BLP material and as such has to be a lot more firmly sourced that your implications. BLP applies to talk pages as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have quite emotional responses to whatever I write. Perhaps you could try not reading it. I see what you are doing as political partisanship, although you don't bother to provide any explanation or even address the points I made earlier. Kauffner (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kauffner&oldid=380172102"