Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:20, 1 August 2012

Invite

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. – Lionel 01:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Your page is protected

Hi. Because your user page has been the victim of a spate of vandalism, I have semi-protected it so that only logged-in autoconfirmed users (such as you) can edit it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Rosetta Barnstar
	For the quality of your translation. Hackerrye (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you...

have a mop yet? Seems like you'd make a great admin. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the flattery. I never applied or anything like that. I'm sure it would be controversial. Kauffner (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My Taiwan Article

Just to let you know, I'm going to continue the talk page you started (User talk:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan) and move it over to (User talk:Jpech95/taiwan) and we will continue there. Thanks! Jpech95 21:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Worker's Barnstar for Taiwan

The Working Man's Barnstar

Kauffner, I'd like to thank you for so much that you did for our Taiwan Proposal. From the very beginning you were very dedicated to it, between doing some major editing and being a huge part of the discussion. Even though we hit a few bumps in the road with some disagreements between ourselves or others, we managed to get it to where it is now, and hopefully, it will pass and go into effect, which would be an achievement, at least for me, and hopefully you too. So, again, thank you very much, and I think you are more than deserving of this barnstar. JPECH95 23:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

SNSD

Read the second paragraph "Speaking on a SBS TV program on Feb. 3, Kim Ji-hoon said they are allowed seasonal vegetables, five pieces of broccoli, 100 g of grilled chicken breast, and 150 g of brown rice." It does not mention if this meal is per day or per meal (only that they eat 1500 kcal a day), but if you calculate the calories, like here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=calculate+calories+five+pieces+of+broccoli%2C+100+grams+of+grilled+chicken+breast%2C+150+grams+brown+rice You'll see that it's far closer to 500 calories, which would make sense since it's one meal and therefore eaten three times per day to get the total of 1500. Unless you're seriously suggesting that the seasonal vegetable somehow amounts to over a thousand calories. Eldaran (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Good job on attacking Liberal bias in Conservatism in the United States your common sense defense of Grover Cleveland specifically Lincolnworshipper 2.0 (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ivory Coast move

I couldn't find an appropriate barnstar, but you deserve recognition and appreciation for winning a particularly tough battle for WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The outcome is certainly a pleasant surprise, given the history of the issue. Kauffner (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dien Bien province

Hi, can you proof read this from Viet wiki, I'll try to source it then,♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I copyedited a couple of paragraphs. I will so some more later. Kauffner (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

• Recent research: Conflict dynamics, collaboration and emotions; digitization vs. copyright; WikiProject field notes; quality of medical articles; role of readers; Best Wiki Paper Award

• News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing

• Featured content: One of a kind

• Technology report: Talking performance with CT Woo and Green Semantic MediaWiki with Nischay Nahata

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

The notices that were placed on your talk page were not "threats" as you referred to them in your recent edit summary, but attempts to discuss concerns over your editing. You need to take responsibility for your edits and address these concerns. Removing them from your talk page without replying is simply not an option. Therefore I have blocked your account until you are prepared to start discussing these issues. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is about a page move that I made on Oct. 5, 2011? As for the other stuff, that's already been to ANI and was referred to this RfC. Kauffner (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Those discussions predate the exposure of your abusive behavior at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner; this is what MSGJ is asking for you to discuss, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, this (scroll down to bottom) is what MSGJ was referring to. Jenks24 (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but it's also discussed at the SPI page, where it's part of the pattern. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think MSGJ is even aware of the SPI. Jenks24 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Unblocked. Clearly punitive. Jenks24 (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  The block was certainly not punitive and I don't think much of your explanation on my talk page about why you unblocked without discussing this. It is not about the controversial moves per se, which as you point out is not ongoing, and which I hope will now stop completely. It is the constant dismissal of valid concerns raised on this talk page and the refusal to acknowledge them which is unacceptable, and incompatible with this project. Going forward I would strongly urge Kauffner to:

  • address all concerns in a civil and responsible manner;
  • cease all of these page moves, which have been shown to be controversial.

  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  Well, I don't think much of your block, so I guess we're all square there. As to your suggestions for Kauffner, when someone comes to your talk page, calls you a "crusader" and effectively says "change what you're doing or else", the most civil response is probably just to ignore or remove their comment. Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  Not commenting on the original block, but I would call you highly involved when it comes to this particular user and you shouldn't have been unblocking him and instead should have left it to another admin. -DJSasso (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You were warned about your move-related behaviour a year ago (July/August 2011). You kept up the same behaviour, ignoring objections even from the editors who had developed the articles you moved. In hindsight, I should have done more a year ago, but I naively assumed you would get the message. So now it's a year later. You're well into the classic spiral of editors who get on format crusades. It happened with the date format crusaders - they kept editing thousands of articles, and ended up at arbcom. You've been on this move-crusade for a long time, effectively attempting a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. You're still editing redirects, which prevents non-admins from undoing your undiscussed or "noncontroversial" moves. Whatever happens with the RfC, you need to be done with "uncontroversial" moves. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't think those redirects should be tagged, nominate the categories/templates for deletion, or get a consensus that redirects with only one edit in their history should not be tagged. I'm not sure why diacritics should be treated any differently to other types of redirects. Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's all about context, and intent. If Kauffner was going around tagging lots of redirects, including {{R from title with diacritics}} and {{R from title without diacritics}}, and hadn't just moved over 1000 pages to non-diacritics titles, this would be seen as regular maintenance. However, in this case, many of these moves were controversial, and instead of giving the community space to reverse the moves, editing the redirects forces such discussions to go to RM - even in cases where an RM has already been had! So the act of tagging a redirect, by itself, is innocent (and these templates are fine) - but the campaign behind such edits is not so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Another editor was topic banned from diacritics for making these same sort of mass moves and double editing of redirects to prevent reverts. Preventing reverts by purposefully double editing was deemed to be deliberately disruptive. Going down this path ultimately is likely to result in the same. Crusading like that and attempting a FAITACCOMPLI never ends well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, maybe you can rewrite WP:RE/SG: "The ultimate goal of the guide is to have every redirect categorised in a standard format". Kauffner (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with tagging redirects (I do it myself whenever I close a requested move), but when you so consistently create new redirects and then tag them (see for instance this), it looks downright disruptive. Favonian (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)