Misplaced Pages

User talk:Kauffner: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:06, 6 October 2009 editEdwardsBot (talk | contribs)354,693 edits →The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 5 October 2009: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 02:10, 7 October 2009 edit undoWikidemon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →September, 2009: further cautionNext edit →
Line 320: Line 320:
:You write to complain about 13 different edits, some of them from almost a year ago. WTF? The article doesn't belong to you, you know. The article is not a biography. Who wrote a bestselling book is not a detail of the author's life, but notable for its own sake. Even if it was BLP, Andersen's book is a quality source. Only me edit warring? What are you doing? ] (]) 02:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC) :You write to complain about 13 different edits, some of them from almost a year ago. WTF? The article doesn't belong to you, you know. The article is not a biography. Who wrote a bestselling book is not a detail of the author's life, but notable for its own sake. Even if it was BLP, Andersen's book is a quality source. Only me edit warring? What are you doing? ] (]) 02:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
::You continue to edit war disputed content into the article. Note that your latest edit, inasmuch as it re-introduces something you have been trying to add for over a year now, is a violation ]. This is your '''final warning'''. Please revert your latest edit. If you do not, I or someone will report you to the appropriate notice board, and you will be likely be blocked temporarily from further editing the encyclopedia. This is a caution, not an attempt to discuss this matter. You would do well to pay attention to my first caution if you wish to continue editing these articles. ] (]) 03:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC) ::You continue to edit war disputed content into the article. Note that your latest edit, inasmuch as it re-introduces something you have been trying to add for over a year now, is a violation ]. This is your '''final warning'''. Please revert your latest edit. If you do not, I or someone will report you to the appropriate notice board, and you will be likely be blocked temporarily from further editing the encyclopedia. This is a caution, not an attempt to discuss this matter. You would do well to pay attention to my first caution if you wish to continue editing these articles. ] (]) 03:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Again, cut it out. - I won't report it this time because it is your first edit on the subject for a while, but do not add this again without consensus. ] (]) 02:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


== On the Nazareth and Nazarene articles == == On the Nazareth and Nazarene articles ==

Revision as of 02:10, 7 October 2009

Vietnam

Kauffner relax! I accept it. The question is that the rest of the info should not be deleted, and a source would be nice, to say the least... Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I will respond on the article's talk page. Kauffner (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minhs' wife

Grat work. ARe there any sources on the others one/mistresses? ARe there any sources about Nong Duc Manh's mum? That would be good for GA/FA. Keep it up YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this article, Kauffner. If you have a moment, please respond to the questions raised at the talk page, particularly about the naming concerns. Best, rʨanaɢ /contribs 04:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The women publicly linked to Ho are: Marie Brière (France), Vera Vasilieva (Russia), Nông Thi Xuan (rumoured to be Nong Duc Manh's mom), Nguyễn Thị Minh Khai, Do Thi Lac (highland woman), and Nguyen Thi Phong Thi (briefly hired to take care of Ho's "psycho-psychologocal equilibrium"). Tuyet Minh was the only woman Ho married at a public wedding or for which there is a legal marriage registration. There is quite a bit of material available about Minh Khai in the various Ho biographies and she certainly deserves an article of her own. (Every city in Vietnam has a street or school named after her.) Xuan died in a sensational traffic accident. I'll see if I can come up with some more. Kauffner (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Hey Kauffner, I undid your removal of the DYK nom for now because I think this is still eligible for DYK...I understand it's frustrating when people bring up problems with an article you've worked very hard on, but judging by how YellowMonkey restored the article I think there's strong evidence that there is still hope for this article, so I restored the DYK nomination for now so that the reviewers there can decide whether they think the sources are good enough or not. (For what it's worth, I think that the sources are probably ok, and even if those two aren't then it should be possible to find the original articles of which they are mirrors and use them for the same information.) If you still would like to withdraw your contribution, undo me and I won't revert again, but I figured I should at least give this one more chance, because I think it's an interesting topic and the article is well-researched. rʨanaɢ /contribs 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. I hadn't been looking in the last two days because I was tied up with Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_YellowMonkey YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Wright material

Please do not revert war or edit disruptively. See WP:DE for details. If you cannot engage in the discussion page you should not edit the articles. That specific material belongs on the timeline and not in the article for reasons stated on the talk page; please discuss there rather than edit warring. Thanks! csloat (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 15 June 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kauffner. You have new messages at ImperatorExercitus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I' 12:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tăng Tuyết Minh

Updated DYK query On June 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tăng Tuyết Minh, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice job getting this to the MP! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ /contribs 20:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 22 June 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 29 June 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Right to exist

Thank you for your contributions to this article. However Wikipedeia is a collaborative work, and it is normal to discuss radical change on the discussion page, and reach a concensus before deleting large sections of the article. While I recognise that there is value to you contributions, I will revert them to recover the previous article. Please feel free to make constructive edits.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I had to revert all your edits, but this was necessary due to "conflicting intermediate edits".93.96.148.42 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
See talk -revision 300404844 by KauffnerThis attempted to remove references to the rights of states other than Israel to exist. I have reverted it. Please explain the reasoning behind it, as it appeared destructive.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss further any major deletions on the talk page, before repeating them. Have a look at :wp:3R.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
3R is "more than three revert actions...within a 24 hour period". What are you accusing me of? Kauffner (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Repeatedly making large scale deletions of sourced material from an article, without explanation, or attempting to reach consensus - revision 302985014 for example.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not "without explanation." There is a long explanation on the talk page. You don't really justify what your doing anywhere. Kauffner (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You deleted a lot of material, claiming Israel was more important. I reinstated it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

t:GW

Please stop wasting everyone's time . The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not re-hashig long-dead arguments covered by the FAQ. Go talk at the FAQ if you must, though that too will be a waste of time, as you know William M. Connolley (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any issue I am allowed to disagree you about? Kauffner (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes William M. Connolley (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I read your paper and your point seems to be just that people disagreed on this subject in the 1970s, and so what? That's still true today. You set it up as scientists vs. politicians, but this is just spin. Schneider's research was motivated by opposition to SST. Kauffner (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, you need to look up the verb "to Rasool". Though having just tried it I admit that its a near-impossible task. It means, to omit the major author of a given work in order to attack the (then) minor author who has subsequently become a more interesting target William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 6 July 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:People executed by the Vietminh and Category:Purged Vietnamese communists

I might have missed a lot of people that meet the crieria YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I hadn't meant it as a joke. I thought you could have added some people to those cats. Just forgot to put the colon in front YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 12:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oic. "Revisionist" leader Hoàng Cơ Minh comes to mind, but the wiki article on Hoàng Cơ Minh appears to be a different guy. Trần Xuân Bách was a politburo member purged in 1990, but he doesn't have an entry either. Kauffner (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Of Bethlehem

Hi Kauffner, I have been going through the Misplaced Pages article “The Star Of Bethlehem,” which seems to be one of your favourite subject. Do you think that a star really appeared during the birth of Jesus? If so how long did it stay in the sky? Did King Herod, or any others in Jerusalem see it? Any possibility of getting some historical evidence for this phenomenon. Hope you have some evidences. I am also interested in the study of this subject. Thank you.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a story about theology and prophesy and shouldn't be used as a astronomical guide. Mark and Q are considered the oldest and most historical material in the gospels and neither includes a nativity narrative. The star is mentioned only in Matthew, who seems to have added material designed to emphasize Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. If anything remarkable had really happened when Jesus was born, the issue would have come up when he was preaching in Galilee or Jerusalem, but instead Jesus let the Pharisees claim he was born in Galilee (John 7:52). A birth in Bethlehem is required to fulfill Micah 5:2. There is not necessarily any dishonesty involved; Since he was the Messiah, Matthew took it for granted that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies. In Genesis 15:5, God shows Abraham the stars in the sky and tells him and they represent his descendants. So there is Biblical logic in connecting Jesus, a descendant of Abraham, to a star. Matthew's description of the star is probably based on stories about Halley's comet, which appeared in 12 BC and again AD 66 (which Matthew might have witnessed). Perhaps Matthew had only a vague idea of when Jesus was born, or when the comet appeared, and so he thought it was plausible to connect the two events. Kauffner (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Kauffner you've been one of my favorite unbiased editors and I can't understand your recent changes/additions. I just have a couple question, shouldn't things like "Roman Law" go under the section "Marriage Law", I just feel like adding to Roman Law on the basis that it was one of the most powerful constructs invalidates the other cultural definitions. It doesn't even accept on things like age of consent or anything, so I wanted an explanation because this is unlike you, thanks - Linestarz (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you admit its influence, it seems that should be a reason to put it in. Most European countries had a "reception of Roman Law." Why do you think De Quincey's definition is relevant? A drug-addict's journal seems quite out of place compared to the other sources used. Kauffner (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It should go under marriage law because that's what it was, a law. A definition is not the standard just because of ad populum per law, it's a basic logical fallacy. Next, to disqualify De Quincey's definition based on a personal grievance against him is another logical fallacy, circumstantial ad hominem. I can't believe I'm telling this to you of all people... - Linestarz (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The Roman Law definition and the other definitions I gave were cited by anthropology writers, either Su or Bell. Who cites De Quincey? A wiki article should be based on secondary sources by specialists on the subject. Kauffner (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You're comparing an author to Roman Law, it's a lose-lose situation, in this case we should rid on citing any author whatsoever and rely entirely on laws by major populations. I also find it extremely interesting at how you're so adamant at including Roman law but not the Mesopotamian definition, seems very hypocritical. - Linestarz (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems that you do not read what I write before responding it. I picked definitions that were cited in the academic literature. You haven't shown that De Quincy's definition is used by more than one author. As far as Mesopotamian law goes, there is no definition of marriage in the Hammurabi Code. It's just not true that a wife is the same as a slave under this code. She has various rights that are enumerated and she can even get a divorce if she is mistreated (section 172). Kauffner (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You can't just read the laws and assume that is that, glance over at section 141, the idea of a woman divorcing her husband in those times were unheard of. Another one of your problems is the result of thinking because something is quoted, it must be valid and true. How often has "the world is flat" been quoted? How often has Hitler been quoted? Neither of the previously mentioned sources are considered legitimate. We are quoting people who have an authority on the subject, not just randoms. And last question, why quote Roman Law but nothing earlier? What about Sumerian laws and age of consent laws, why not include them? - Linestarz (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Haven't I explained this more than once already? I got the definitions from The Chinese Family System by Sing Ging Su, p. 54-55, and from "Defining Marriage and Legitimacy" (1997) by Duren Bell. These are anthropology writings in which the author presents compares various definitions of marriage. I did not pick definitions at random! Neither of these authors gave any Sumerian definitions. You can take it up with them. Kauffner (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Right to exist

You appear to be edit warring on the above article and introducing a non neutral pov into the article. Please respect the opinions of other editors, accept that they are acting in good faith and discuss proposed changes with them. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I already have detailed explanation on the talk page. If you Google right to exist the overwhelming majority of the hits relate to Israel, so focusing on other countries is WP:UNDUE. Kauffner (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Undue weight: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The article is about "right to exist", not 'Israel's right to exist'. Perhaps such a page should be created?93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
As User:93.96.148.42 has pointed out WP:Undue Weight. The number of Google hits is no indication. Google hits are not evidence of the strength of a case or the notability of it. There are many nations who have claimed a right to exits, many more than are in the article. Your edits are extremely POV as you have removed valid references to other uses of the term. You have to learn how to work with other editors, not just to impose your your own POV. Misplaced Pages is about co-operation not confrontation. If you can't accept that, then maybe you should deploy your talents elsewhere. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow. You know so much better than me or Google. You can even determine which countries claim a right to exist without researching the issue. It also sounds like your blood pressure has gone up. Take it easy. Kauffner (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Please try reading what I said - not imagining it as some sort of confrontation. People are trying to be polite here and point you to Misplaced Pages policies. Sarcasm and belligerence won't help you. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lien Thanh

Has this fellow Major Lien Thanh, the former head of police in Hue come round to your area to speak about his new book "Bien Dong Mien Trung" about the Buddhist crisis in 1966, the Tet Offensive and Hue Massacre in 1968 and the 1972 communist offensive? I presume he went around the US before Australia. Apparently 1000+ people turned up in Melbourne. About 300 people here came out of maybe 12,000 Viets in the city, although only about 1% were under 45. He made some quite sensational claims about Thich Tri Quang etc , and all these people he claimed to be communists. The crowd, as far as I can tell, was more like an organised Diemist demonstration. Actually more like any Asian country where teh govt cadres tell the villagers to applaud at the end. There were a stack of people who all started clapping and cheering in a raucous way each time he bagged Thich Tri Quang, and their way of doing it didn't appear surprised as though they were taking new info, it seemed feigned. Most of them were well known Catholic activists lol. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I presume he won't have been to Vietnam, but I thought you might have heard of the book. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It's all news to me. He'd be arrested as a "terrorist" if he came here. That's what happens to the Tam Viet people. The first time I came to Vietnam, around 2001, it was still a police state. People would say to me, "You can't talk about that or the police will arrest you!" Now its much more relaxed and people are apolitical. China is only political issue with any traction at all. Otherwise they just wanna read news about the movie stars. The churches overflow every Sunday, with communicates stretching out to the parking lot. Kauffner (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 27 July 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 10:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barry Dunham

Would you have preferred criteria G10 had been used ? This term, in reference to Obama, is used primarily as a pejorative by the more extreme elements of his political opposition. Secondary usage is as a hypothetical non-Africanized version of his name (e.g. ). If there is any evidence that Obama or anyone associated with him (friends, family, school teachers, ...) have ever used this name to refer to him, I have not seen it. As noted by Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Words that label, "The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral."

As to your Google count, you may wish to look at a few of the hits. Unless Obama has bleached his skin since his last press conference or moved outside of Washington D.C. then "hits" such as , , , , and are just a small sampling of the many false positives you must be counting in your 72,000 figure. --Allen3  13:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is article a mainstream paper that uses it. It says Obama himself has referenced the name in a joke. "Barack Obama or Barry Dunham?" was used title of a scientific study. "Barry Dunham" Obama gives you almost 70,000 hits. I don't see how a redirect can be an "Attack page intended to disparage its subject" and WP:Words to avoid doesn't have anything to do with redirects. Perhaps the page could redirect to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories like Barry Soetoro, or have its own write-up. Kauffner (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent question

Answered on the page, but I must say that your question is curious as it implies that you make your wikipedia editing and maintenance decisions based on race, color, creed, gender, or ethnicity. Is that so? -- Avi (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what happened and I wasn't involved. But as I understand it, Jayjg had checkuser at one point, was accused of misusing it, and it was revoked. So I wondered how much the two of you had in common. Kauffner (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I give you a hard because we argued recently, although it seems you have already forgotten. I don't have prior knowledge regarding any other candidate. Kauffner (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh no, I remember quite well, I just try hard not to take conversations personally -- Avi (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 3 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lubavitcher

I noticed you asked on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight_elections/August_2009#Avraham "I notice you don't edit on the Sabbath. Are you Lubavitcher?"

FYI, there are many other denominations in Judaism aside Lubavitch that keep the Sabbath. I am Lubavitcher, BTW. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But none of that seems to stop you from editing on the Sabbath. Kauffner (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Kauffner, please remember that wikipedia times are UTC, but the Sabbath is observed in local time. Someone in California or Australia will be close to 12 hours off UTC, and while it may be Saturday in London, it will be Friday or Sunday in local time. -- Avi (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 10 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 17 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Right to exist

Your recent edits are an improvement, but need to use reliable sources, not blogs. Please discuss on the talk page the material you removed, and the reasoning behind your reordering of the page. I still feel that, as previously discussed, more attention needs to be given to the concept, and less to Israel.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Tino Fiumara & John D'Amico

Hey i was the one which put up on the Genovese Crime Family that Tino Fiumara was boss but i made a mistake and i fixed it. Hes the Acting boss but with my sources i got them from the daily news {NY daily news}. And with John D'Amico being street boss that was named on an indictment and one guy testifed it was true.

There must be some mistake. D'Amico is with the Gambino family. Bellomo is Genovese street boss. So what is the date of the NY Daily News article about Fiumara? It needs a reference. Kauffner (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes with John D'Amico hes the street boss of the gambinos. but with tino fiumara there was and something saying he was the boss check it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott835 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 31 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 17:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think

Is this ok?. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It is nonsense. The Vietcong was a front, a focus of propaganda. It was the North Vietnamese army did the fighting and won the war. Kauffner (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The Viet Cong was the communist insurgency during the Vietnam War, just like the Iraqi insurgency during the Iraq War. And look at article Iraqi insurgency, it's really long and has a lot of details. So, could you expand article Viet Cong to be as long as article Iraqi insurgency? 98.119.158.59 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Van Jones are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Truther, Communist, and cop killer advocate" sounds like a satire. But it's just an objective description of this freak. Kauffner (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Van jones

OK, I´ll bite. What was the one explanation?--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jokes don't get funnier when you explain them. The last part is a quote from the truther petition Jones signed, but applied to his own situation. Kauffner (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

If that's so, then what are they called? I don't see any alternate explanation, though I could have missed it. Also, it would stand to reason that if Christ is called Nazarene because he is from Nazareth then people from Nazareth are called Nazarenes. After we discuss that, then we can discuss the wisdom of moving the article. :-) Speaking of which, I thought you should also know that you forgot to fix all the redirects after you moved it. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You should read the Nazarene (title) article, since that answers a lot of these questions. In Biblical Greek, a person's place of origin is generally given in the form "(name) τὸν ἀπὸ (place)." Only Jesus is "Nazarene" or gets a place name adjective of this kind. The "alternate explanation" is that Nazarene was originally a title equivalent to messiah or Christ, and thus the similarity with the town's name coincidental. In modern newspaper usage, "Nazareth resident" is standard. It's true that "Nazarene" is occasionally used to mean someone from Nazareth, but certainly not often enough to justify putting this meaning first. As far as the page move goes, I don't see other articles with the disambiguator "(word)", which seems to be a statement of the obvious. A bot will fix the links within a few days. Kauffner (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

September, 2009

You are again edit warring to insert material I have disputed as a WP:BLP violation on Dreams from My Father. I note that you have several times before attempted unsuccessfully to edit war into that article a claim that the book was ghost-written by Bill Ayers, as well as add the claims to other articles. You have already been warned that this and other articles are subject to "article probation". This means among other things that editors should first gain consensus for any disputed edits and not edit war. Please stop edit warring, discuss disputed proposals on the article talk page, and do not add the material again unless a consensus is established that it is not a BLP violation and that it should be added to the article. If you persist, an administrator may block your account from editing for a short while to prevent further instability in the article. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You write to complain about 13 different edits, some of them from almost a year ago. WTF? The article doesn't belong to you, you know. The article is not a biography. Who wrote a bestselling book is not a detail of the author's life, but notable for its own sake. Even if it was BLP, Andersen's book is a quality source. Only me edit warring? What are you doing? Kauffner (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You continue to edit war disputed content into the article. Note that your latest edit, inasmuch as it re-introduces something you have been trying to add for over a year now, is a violation WP:3RR. This is your final warning. Please revert your latest edit. If you do not, I or someone will report you to the appropriate notice board, and you will be likely be blocked temporarily from further editing the encyclopedia. This is a caution, not an attempt to discuss this matter. You would do well to pay attention to my first caution if you wish to continue editing these articles. Wikidemon (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, cut it out. - I won't report it this time because it is your first edit on the subject for a while, but do not add this again without consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

On the Nazareth and Nazarene articles

I see that you're already having problems with a pushy editing style from other articles. This is to let you know that I too am becoming tired of correcting your *many* errors, Kauffner, this time on the "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" articles. You clearly are not an expert in this field, but please know that the archaeology of Nazareth has been my *published* specialty for ten years. I'll correct each of your errors once with proper citations or insist that you furnish them for every assertion you make. The second time I consider a warning that you are not abiding by Wiki policy. The third time I'll do what I can to report you for persisting in groundless assertions (like "Nazara" is not in Q). Editing an article ten times a day doesn't help, either. I see that you even correct yourself from one edit to the next, showing that you're just learning this material. Anyway, please be advised that I've got at least as much time to devote to these articles as you.Renejs (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This is your "published specialty for ten years", but you don't know that Julius Africanus was a Christian? Why revert the "Table of variants" to a version that misuses Strong numbers after I corrected them? You obviously don't understand how they work. No professional would cite Zindler as if he was a respectable academic source. You didn't even know what "c." meant until I explained it to you. Kauffner (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Kauffner: Difference between revisions Add topic