This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glaciers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Matthias Kuhle is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
^Schröder, N. (2007): The discrepancy between the method of Cosmogenic Nuclide Exposure Dating on moraines and morphodynamics, weathering, glacierdynamics, erosion and global climate, Quaternary International 167–168, page 369.
^Chevalier, Marie-Luce; et al. (2011). "Constraints on the late Quaternary glaciations in Tibet from cosmogenic exposure ages of moraine surfaces". Quaternary Science Reviews. 30: 528–554. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.11.005.line feed character in |title= at position 81 (help)CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link)
There are no actual discussions  about this topic. The last input was posted more than one month ago - we should promote the discussions. During my readings of the discussion-board it seems like the user Florian Blaschke is affected by a conflict of interest (WP:COI), because I could not find any arguments (response) against the last post of the user Tigona (see above), which are taken several references into account. Consequently we should delete the pointed tags, otherwise the intervention of the user Florian Blaschke vandalizes the Wikipedia contribution continuously. Sagmon (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Stop edit warring over their removal. Let's wait for the parties who have been discussing it in the past to comment. It's not remove and then discuss, it's discuss and then remove. BTW: Were you editing under an IP or different username before? It's unusual for new users to be familiar with things like maintenance templates. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
How exactly should I have a conflict of interest? I'm not a glaciologist or geologist, and I have no connection with Matthias Kuhle. In contrast, those who keep pushing his POV could well be associated with him (students, for example), or identical with him, which makes them those with a COI. What a silly tactic to deflect criticism by saying "no, I'm not a vandal (etc.), the guy who reported me is a vandal (even though he is an established Wikipedian and vandal-hunter)!" It's like a group of white guys in KKK hoods beating up a black man and, when overwhelmed by the police after they were alerted by a passer-by, whining "We're not the racists, the passer-by is the racist!" Yeah, idiots keep trying the tactic for real, but that doesn't stop it from being incredibly idiotic and childish. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I could not found any new discussions after my last post, we should promote it. Are there any Wikipedia-restrictions dealing with the duration of tag blocking on personal pages? Sagmon (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That you're using terms like "promote" and "personal pages" indicates suggests some serious misunderstandings of Wikipedia. But no, there are not. Typically it's until they're resolved/discussed to some extent such that there is consensus to remove them or make changes. It's not something I typically support, but there are tags on articles dating back several years. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The sentence "Kuhle's idea of an ice sheet covering practically the entire Tibetan Plateau has been frequently opposed and are by many glacial geologists considered to be an outrageous hypothesis (cf. Derbyshire et al. 1991; Rutter 1995; Zheng and Rutter 1998; Owen et al. 2005; Lehmkuhl and Owen 2005)." contains a polemic that is inclined towards doubting the very respectability as a scientist and, thereby, damaging the reputation, and this with demonstrably false and demonstrably unfounded accusations. For this readon I delete it.
Last edited at 08:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 23:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)