User talk:Carl.bunderson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Carl.bunderson/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kukini 19:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Bible articles

Welcome to wikipedia and all of that. There has been much dicussion of how these articles are best laid out and it has been decided that most articles on verses are to be merged into their chapters or books and that dicussion is best done on a topic basis. Another topic of debate is whether or not translations should be included in the articles, which, how many, etc. It was decided that the actual translations are better suited for wikisource. See Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Conclusions#Bible_chapters_and_verses.

I would encourage you to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible. kotepho 01:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of verses of Matthew that have the text. People are working on organizing the verses into groups and merging everything. Such as Matthew 1:1 through Matthew 1:17 into Genealogy of Jesus. We do have a policy in general of not including more source text than needed (Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources and Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry). If you would like links to the previous discussions most can be found from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KJV and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:9. It is a confusing situation though as the discussion has taken place in a myriad of different places in varying forms. Hopefully the arbitration case will clarify things a little. I just didn't want you going through all of the trouble adding the text only to have all of the articles merged soon after.

You haven't caused trouble and you have nothing to be sorry for at all. kotepho 06:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Song of Solomon, 28 July 2007 (heading added subsequently for clarification)

Carl could you please do something about this continual deletion of the unexpurgated Song of Solomon entry. As I have shown you the book is in books in print dean is on the Yale Harvard catalogues and other leading American university libraries-which indicate deans credentials. Gamahucher press is a bona fida publisher as liSted in books in print. This continual deletion is just people useing wiki for their own bigoted ends

The best I can do is to suggest that when you revert back to your version, you include 'see talk' in the edit summary. That might help to make sure that other editors see that consensus has already been made on the issue. Carl.bunderson 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
(Sorry to continue this thread in what is obviously the wrong location …) Carl, you may wish to take a look at Talk:Song of Solomon#Evidence of spamming. Dean, the author of this so-called "unexpurgated" version, has a long history of spamming references and links to his work all over the web, under various assumed identities (some of which have been banned on other websites for that very reason). The five links I give are just the tip of the iceberg. Theo777's behaviour and writing style exactly match what can be seen elsewhere, right down to the dubious literacy and hysterical reaction to any criticism of Dean's work. So, basically, this is self-promotional spam. Theo777's currently taking an enforced breather for 3RR, but I dare say he'll be back. As to consensus, Hayden5650, AnonMoos and I have all been reverting the spam link, and Alastair Haines expressed talk-page support for its removal. Obviously, I'm hoping you'll reconsider your support for its inclusion in the light of this new evidence. Vilĉjo 21:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
(Oh that's fine, I didn't really know what else to do with it either.) Sorry for having (unwittingly) helped a vandal. Once I saw the continuation of the discussion on the Song of Solomon talk page [shortly after I replied to Theo up above] I decided to quit supporting him. Carl.bunderson 21:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

vial in snape's closet

Hello. I noticed that you added a section to the trivia on the Goblet of Fire film page, saying that a vial in Snape's store cupboard has the label 'Half Blood Prince'. Can you explain where you saw this, or where it came from, because, i can't see the vial myself. Sandpiper 17:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I tried. Cyberlink power DVD puts 1hr 49m 29s in the middle of the maze scene, and snape's cupboard in the region of 1 hr 45 mins. I have a scene at 1hr 45m07s where Harry is on the left looking to the right of screen, Snape is on the right with his back to camera, but holding a bottle of veritaserum. There is a bottle on the shelf reasonably visible just above his elbow, a bit below and right of the centre of the screen. This is the most visible label I could make out in the scene. Label seems to read 'something something', and below the second word also handwritten 'potion'. This one, or a different one?

There is another bottle to the left of that one, visible at 1:45:13, but I would say that one said something potion ar least as likely as it says prince, though I would not swear it actualy said potion. Sandpiper 00:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling reversion

Hi. I see you are reverting spelling, however please note that both -ise and -ize (recognize, specialize) are used in British English. Indeed many London publishers have a policy of using -ize to be more 'international'. - Kleinzach 10:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't think these changes are worth reverting. If there is a comprehensive attempt to Americanize or de-Americanize a whole article then there may be a problem and the intention of the editor may be bad, but in this case we don't know why it was changed. Maybe the editor just thought it was a spelling mistake? I don't see a problem here. - Kleinzach 19:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Problematic Articles

The way you deal with such articles is through the following process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks for asking. Best, Kukini 21:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Kukini 22:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Film noir

I was a bit blunt in my reasoning for removing the French New Wave paragraph (explained only in edit summary) but someone with more than passing knowledge on the subject can tell that that paragraph in its current form is nearly useless. Skim through Breathless and Shoot the Piano Player to see how superficial and sometimes inaccurate that paragraph was. Jonathan F 02:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I removed the paragraph for you; you've convinced me. Carl.bunderson 03:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Xbox name

Please, when making a change that will affect the whole article, breaking wikilinks, please discuss before doing so. The name XBox, XBOX and Xbox has already been discussed in the talk page, see here. Thanks for understanding. -- ReyBrujo 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it was inadvertent. I only meant to remove what looked like nonsense added by 81.159.192.36. I'll be more careful in the future though. Carl.bunderson 20:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pilate

Yes, I was surprised to learn about Pilate's veneration in the Coptic church as well. Google turns up a number of mentions; here are a couple of the ones that at least look more reputable:

Some older apocryphal writings that may show Pilate in a favorable light:

Hope this helps. Wesley 16:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

hi

I don't understand.

I'm strictly writing about Saint Paul from an objective viewpoint.

My research is relative to a scholarly paper at a university.

You are essentially changing objective statements for prophetical views.

If you continue to change "objective research" and deem it NPOV a dispute will need to be resolved.

If nothing else, the final paragraph of your writing needs to be rewritten or removed:
These contradicting views and dissimilarities between God in the Old and New Testament were pointed out by Gnostics such as Marcion in his lost and extant work Antithesis. Works like antithesis and other writings dissenting from Orthodox (meaning 'straight') Christianity were destroyed during the time of Constantine I. Paul's epistles were eventually included in the New Testament canon despite his limited knowledge of Jesus; this reveals to scholars that objectivity has nothing to do with what makes it into the biblical canons. Canons are decided by a majority; making the mistake that a majority decision is always the right decision will reveal many inconsistencies relative to truth in scripture along with compromised faith among believers. It’s also worth noting that Paul's epistles were joined by the four main Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John during 180AD by Bishop Irenaeus who believed, "There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic.” [7] This faulty logic subsequently caste all other gospels as Gnostic, many of which conflict mightily with the views held by Paul.
That is not NPOV. Also, Marcion was not a gnostic. Carl.bunderson 03:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well. I apologize for being frusterated as it is late and I am attempting to study, of all things, for a test relative to a bible class!

So I will change it. Thanks

Also, where do you think I can put it. I would like to place it higher on his page because it is not an "alternative view". That is my goal, to sway from such. Ideas?

It's quite alright being frustrated; I was too, and I wasn't as welcoming to a new editor as I should have been. If it was my decision, I'd put it between "Writings" and "Legendary tradition". And you don't have to call the section "Objective scholarship on St Paul"; "scholarly consensus" sounds better. Thanks for wanting my input after I was somewhat of an ass. And good luck in your class. Carl.bunderson 03:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I refrained from classifying Marcion as gnostic and I also elminated the statement relative to biblical canons. My point was simply a "majority decision" like that from congress is not always the right decision, this being relative to biblical canons because they are decided by a majority.

Well the very idea that there is a right biblical canon is POV.
Paul's epistles were eventually included in the New Testament canon despite his limited knowledge of Jesus; this reveals to scholars that objectivity has nothing to do with what makes it into the biblical canons. Canons are decided by a majority; making the mistake that a majority decision is always the right decision will reveal many inconsistencies relative to truth in scripture along with compromised faith among believers.
That just didn't sit well with me, in terms of NPOV. I appreciate the point that you're trying to make, and it is a valid one. Tyranny of the majority is definitely an evil. I'd say if you wanted to talk about that, maybe Biblical canon or New Testament apocrypha would be a better place. Again, sorry I was such an ass. Carl.bunderson 03:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I wrote the following on King Saul and wanted to see your specific complaints. I plan on revising it later because I must leave for the night.


Scholarly interpretation of Saul and its foretelling of David

The book of Samuel foretells the story of David through the tragic kingship granted to Saul. Saul's dreadful downfall can be traced back to the book of Samuel's duplicate views of monarchy. According to Samuel in chapter 8, the establishment of a monarchy was based on the distrust of the people's faith in Yahweh, thus causing Yahweh to reluctantly give in, "virtually assuring Saul's eventual failure". This conversation with Yahweh takes the form of prophecy, a one on one interaction between the prophet Samuel and God with no other listener. Scholars generally concede that these conversations with God and no other listener is the writer speaking, thus Yahweh reluctantly granting Saul's kingship while Saul warns the Israelites of the evils of monarchy are viewed as Deuteronomistic hindsight, "a looking back on the oppressive burden that the expensive splendors of David's royal dynasty imposed on Israel" (Deut 17). This doomful view of monarchy relevant to Saul drastically conflicts with the view of monarchy under David. David’s line is never condemned and Yahweh even grants him an unconditional royal line forever, “Your family and your kingdom will be established for ever in my sight; your throne will endure for all time” (2 Sam 7:16). These promises will eventually be compromised when David impregnates Bathsheba and kills her husband, ultimately resulting in the incest and murder of David’s children. This tragic fate of David along with Yahweh’s abandoning of his promises is all but foretold in the earlier story of King Saul.

Saul is named King by Samuel when the Israelites request a kingship for the purposes of tribal unity. This sis the case because they believe a king will prolong their existence in the face of rising aggressors. Samuel warns them of the pitfalls of a monarchy; he will exploit them economically and confiscate their best property. He also finally warns, “but if you do not obey the Lord, and if you rebel against his commands, then his hand will be against you and your king” (1 Sam 12:15).

The appointed King Saul eventually taints his own kingship when performing priestly rituals before battle when people begin leaving; such rituals were only to be performed by priests although they had not showed. Saul also errs by not following God exactly when he commands him to destroy all of the Amalekites, “Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels and donkeys” (1 Sam 15:3) Saul spares Amalekite King Agag hoping to sacrifice him and sheep for God in his own land. God is so infuriated that he dooms Saul’s kingship to be replaced by a better man (This better man would be David). As for King Agag, “Then Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord at Gilgal” (1 Sam 15:33).

Saul’s death is just as bizarre, when struck by an archer while battling the Philistines, “He said to his armour-bearer, Draw your sword and run me through, so that these uncircumcised brutes may not come and taunt me and make sport of me. But the armour-bearer refused; he dared not do it. Thereupon Saul took his own sword and fell on it” (Samuel 31:4)

Yes, add that back. I reverted it assuming it would be NPOV because of how I felt about your St Paul edit. Sorry bout that. Carl.bunderson 03:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
PS, do try and put it above the "Kingdom of Israel" box this time, though. Carl.bunderson 03:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Spambusters

Carl.bunderson:
Defender of the Wiki

Thanks for removing SPUSA linkspam added by an anonymous user (or users?) to many articles. This user has been persistently adding such links (as well as spam to the body of articles) for some time, as:

and probably countless others that have escaped my attention. I just removed dozens of these SPUSA links myself — there's still many more to clean up, but I got a headache :( I noticed that you and user:Bookandcoffee have also been doing this thankless work! So, here's a barnstar to make it not so thankless :) ntennis 05:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much ntennis. It totally made my day to see that first thing this morning on my talk page! Carl.bunderson 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Karaoke reverts

For your conflict on Karaoke, I recommend starting a discussion on User talk:67.174.231.20 or User talk:1audiosyntrac2 instead of further reverts. Since this isn't an issue of clear vandalism, you're probably in 3-revert rule violation. Even if not, I think you'll accomplish more through a civil discussion. ~ Booya Bazooka 00:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Any admins thinking of blocking me, please see I have good faith, as evidenced by my having now taken Booyabazooka's advice. Carl.bunderson 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul of Tarsus

I saw your edit summary, and my reasons for my continued reverting back to the use of AD in the article is because the other editors were all sockpuppets of a banned user who was trying to push that "If years are solely AD in an article, then all usage of AD should be removed" or a similar explanation. He has been blocked multiple times, even several range blocks on the IPs he has been using. Ryūlóng 01:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I didn't realise that. I came late in the game and was just basing it on the recent edit summaries. Carl.bunderson 01:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added back a single "AD" to the beginning of the article, to specify that he was born in the year 9 AD, as all years after that would be able to be discerned to be years in AD. Ryūlóng 01:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good. Carl.bunderson 01:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are interested in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Interpretation, as regards AD.--151.47.119.2 22:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick talk contribs 02:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

carl

Hi

I am having trouble keeping my articles on Saint Paul from being vandalized. Some members are attempting to discredit the sources rather than the information. That wouldn't be a problem as the sources are numerous, however they still alter the objective information on paul.

I am quite perplexed as to what to do. Christian fundamentalists are completely altering the life of saint paul, one of which goes by the user name Str.

Biblical1 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest trying to start discussion about your differences of opinion to the talk page for Paul of Tarsus. I haven't followed all of the changes that you and they have made, but looking at your last change from the version by Codex, I personally don't agree with your edits. The only substantive things I noticed were you saying that there exist no writings by Christ or his disciples; this isn't true...Matthew is generally attributed to the apostle Matthew. And your references to Nag Hammadi I don't really understand; it seems as though you're trying to discredit St Paul. It seems like the Nag Hammadi stuff you added would be better placed in Nag Hammadi library. But yeah my general advice is to air your differences on the talk page. I could help you more then, to get a better idea of what exactly the problem is. Carl.bunderson 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Cape Verde links

Hi Carl - I noticed that you deleted a link here as there were two effectively identical ones. I'd already reverted one page thinking that it was closer to spam but decided I'd go with your view and deleted one of think links in each page entered by Special:Contributions&target=172.159.184.222. They are now going back in - I've not been around all that long so I'm not sure how strongly I feel about this - you??

Cheers -- Nigel 12:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As a PS I found a little later that the same links had been placed in "local" pages from a different IP address in May. One is certainly spam (in my view) the other I guess could be discussed - however I've reverted that batch I think. The problem would be with warning the IP address as they may appear as another one next time - any thoughts?

Regards -- Nigel 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nigel, thanks for your questions. If you want to remove all of the mentioned links, I'd support you in it. When I went to the homepage of that one, I just looked at the directory at the top and it looked enough like a real page that it was ok. If you went an actually looked at the subpages and decided it's spam, I'll back you up. The Cape Verde page has had a history of linkspam, so I'm of the opinion that we should take a hard line on it and when something is questionable, just take it out. And I would go ahead and warn the IP address. It's basically an uphill battle, but we have to try. If the anon user continues to spam after receiving 3-4 levels of warnings (which will warn that he can be blocked) you can request on the admin pages that he be blocked. I hope this helps, and don't hesitate to contact me if you have any more questions. Have a good evening! Carl.bunderson 19:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Decline of the Roman Empire

Carl.bunderson Greetings! I restored a part of the paragraph you moved. The issue of the facts that Gibbon researched being used by later historians in their theories needs to be in the article on the decline and fall - on the other hand, the quote you moved is appropriately moved. I hope you will find this a reasonable compromise. old windy bear 23:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, thanks for considering my thoughts :) Carl.bunderson 23:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Carl.bunderson Thanks equally for considering mine. You had an excellent point that the quote was out of place, and I appreciate your considering that since all the later historians used his facts, it was appropriate to mention them, while moving the quote. You improved the article, and in the end, this really typifies, (all kidding aside!), what editors should do, work together, consider each other's thoughts, and achieve consensus. old windy bear 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Why did you revert ([1]), without explanation, my edits to the Harry Potter article? They were legit and I worked hard on them, especially the direct links and the character clean up. A bit of a slap in the face. 70.53.0.153 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about that. When I went through it, I thought you were overlinking. Reviewing it again, I see you actually were undoing overlinking. I apologise, and I think I was sleepier than I should have be when editing. Again, my apologies. Carl.bunderson 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I restored your edits, so it should be taken care of. Again, I'm sorry for my carelessness. Carl.bunderson 18:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks and it's all good. :) 70.50.175.126 20:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [2]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 04:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I looked at this, and I'm not sure what I think. Given the WP definition you've cited, the BTP was an act of terrorism. However, checking the OED definition, its not. The (relevant) OED definition is "A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized" and I don't think that it was meant to strike terror into the British; rather it was just meant to bring about a policy change. Let me know your response to this. Carl.bunderson 05:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

I would be greatful if you could please fully explain as to why you consider a website promoting Tourism in Algeria is considered 'linkspam' on the Algeria page. The Visit Oran website is known as an official tourism guide for Oran - Algeria's second largest city. The site also caters for visitors planning to visit the rest of the country. Last

I do not think that tourism sites should be linked to on Wikipedia. Their primary purpose is to promote commercial activity (i.e. tourism) rather than to provide educational information about the location. I'd say that your Visit Oran site is good as far as tourism sites go, but allowing it opens the floodgates. Often articles like that (Cape Verde is a good example) end up with long lists of external links that really are not that beneficial and merely take up room in the article. I hope this helps justify my position to you. Carl.bunderson 08:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yo

Hehe, when I saw that the Berthoud article was a little more in-depth than I expected I had a feeling I knew who might have been editing it. Enjoy editing Pelagius, removing linkspam, etc. :) Gzabers 20:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha, that's me. How is school going for you? Carl.bunderson 17:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request

Autoblock lifted. Apologies for the inconvenience. Shout me (using the {{unblock}} template again) if it hasn't worked. Happy editing! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Carl.bunderson 05:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock, again

unblock|I was autoblocked by Curps because my IP (64.233.172.2) was used by a vandal (TwixDawg)

Removed. Looking at that IP it is registered to Google, which suggest you are using something like Google Web Accelerator which means you end up using some quite widely shared IP addresses. --pgk 19:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Note on adding full Eastern Orthodox Project to your watchlist

This is a note for members of the Eastern Orthodox Project: Since the project's main page has been converted to a portal-style box format, each of the boxes is actually its own page (you can see the page outside its box by clicking the 'Edit' link on any often the section boxes on the project page, which takes you to the edit page for its contents). Because of this, updates to individual box contents will not necessarily show up on editors' watchlists, if you've only got the main project page watched.

In order to keep up to date with all updates to the Project and its pages, I'd recommend adding each subpage to your watchlists. These are:

If you add all of the above pages to your watchlist, you should be informed whenever any part of the WikiProject Eastern Christianity is edited/updated. To discuss this, please see the relavent section of the Project's talk page. —Antonios Aigyptostalk 09:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Bow tie

Hi,

You may have an interest, since I saw your name in the history list of the Bow tie article: There's a separate article, List of bow tie wearers and an admin is suggesting deleting it. When I looked into the Bow tie page, I found there's already a list there. I don't have an opinion on which list should remain, but one really should go. I'd appreciate your advice on the Talk:Bow tie page, if you're interested and have the time.Noroton 00:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism COTM

The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month has been reactivated! Please consider going to the page to either vote for one of the nominated articles, or nominate one yourself. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

To arms! To arms!

The List of bow tie wearers page has been nominated for article deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers) and there are already seven deletionists surrounding me. Are you, a contributor to that page (and to the discussion on the Bow tie page back in October) gonna let them do that?!? Defend our page! Go there to vote to uphold truth, justice and the civilized way! Noroton 20:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Islamic socialism

You have edited the article Islamic socialism. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you. Edivorce 01:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Pecorino-romano.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Pecorino-romano.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Permission of copyright holder was denied via email

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Image:Pecorino-romano.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent revert

The blog that I linked to on the David article is hardly a blog in the conventional sense of the word. Reb Chaim HaQoton is a collection of well-sourced and documented essays on various topics within the scope of Judaism. The "blog post" that I linked to on the David article is hardly a blog post, it is a well-sourced academic paper with 50 footnotes that happens to be hosted on blogspot.com and the content is formatted in blog form. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 23:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I should have looked at the pager rather than just reacting to the blogspot.com URL. I went ahead and restored it for you. Carl.bunderson 23:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


JUST SOME....

countries in the Americas are melting pots? I think that all were. Ok maybe the Mexicans were more populated with spnicha colons just some mostly spanish immigrants and native americans. And Canda or Argentina on the other hand were populated with waves of immigrants from different countries after the colons. And you can visit Argentina or Canda and see manmy immigrants even these days pakis and chinese in Canda, chinese and pervians and central americans in Argentina.


But Aren't all the countries in the Americas "melting pots" in the sense of not just an unique ethnic group???

Greetings Ornella Lynch.

Hi, Ornella. It's a matter of consensus. Looking at the talk page, there's wide agreement that demographics version to which I reverted, the status quo version, is preferable to the new one. It is better sourced and written than is the alternative version. Perhaps if the status quo version were modified to incorporate your concerns, while maintaining its overall facts-based structure, we could all agree on it. Carl.bunderson 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and does include spoilers

Wikipedia is not censored. I'd advise for you to avoid Wikipedia articles on Harry Potter for the next week if you don't want the book spoiled, as it WILL be on Wikipedia before the book is released. It has been leaked online, and you're probably going to be angry if you find out major plot points. Titanium Dragon 06:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Why ruin it for the rest of us who are waiting for the actual release date? But, point well taken, I should probly just take all HP related pages off my watchlist till Saturday morning. Carl.bunderson 06:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to "ruin it for people"; I'm shocked that the Harry Potter articles don't have spoiler tags on them. But the reality is that the book is online and someone who has seen it or read it in some fashion, be they pirate, someone who works for a shipping company or bookstore, someone who reviewed the book, or what have you, will post details. Not reading articles on a subject which you don't want to be spoilered is just common sense. Titanium Dragon 06:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I appreciate your point that WP isn't censored; note I haven't reverted your edits again, nor will I. I still think it's a touch mean spirited, when you know darn well people don't want to know this stuff yet. Carl.bunderson 06:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That silly porn list/table

Carl, that list being pushed for inclusion in the Human penis size article does not belong there, nor does it belong on the Pornography project page. It is not related to the content of either place. The list/table istelf should not be discussed because it does not have a page of its own, nor is it on any page, nor should it be included in either place I mentioned. Therefore, sourcing is not germane to the issue, as I see it. 72.68.123.113 21:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It does too. It is of at least mild interest and the extreme examples of human penis size belong in the human penis size article. Carl.bunderson 21:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. It's a list of porn stars. Alternatives have been proposed where that info can appropriately be listed. The Human penis size article is an article on anatomy and sexuality, not pornography. 72.68.123.113 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
And what are the proposed alternatives? Carl.bunderson 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
They're listed on the talk page, from a number of editors. You're not going to ask me to repeat them all? 72.68.123.113 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I just read through the entire thing, and I think Hydro's idea of better incorporating it into the article, and meco's new improved version [albiet w/o the unsourced persons] is the best idea. Carl.bunderson 22:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, the article is about anatomy and sexuality, not pornography. A list/table of pornstars is a list/table of pornstars; it has no practical merit. The role of penis size in pornography is something that could be referenced in the article, in a short paragraph or two, pointing to another article of the names suggested in talk, but not a table of pornstars, that's worthless and ruins an otherwise good article. 72.68.123.113 22:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
idk, I disagree. It's a list of pornstars notable for their penis size; it's pretty applicable to a page on human penis size. There wouldn't be enough sourced persons to have an article of its own linked to in this article; its best to just have a short paragraph noting the role of penis size in porn, and a short table accompanying it. Carl.bunderson 18:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

controversial edit

there was no controversy i was simply placing a sinple refrence within the page the refrence is there and is given it simply states that the number of the beast was used in the anime digimon i fail to see how this is controversial danieljackson 22:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't use wikipedia as a source in wikipedia. You must cite a published, verifiable, outside source for any content you add. Carl.bunderson 23:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


I did i'll repost the stupid thing here so that you can read it even though it was already refrenced on the article twice i might add that you deleted it http://www.absoluteanime.com/digimon/myotismon.htm

Yes you're very perceptive. I deleted it--I did this because it is against WP policy. And it is still Against WP policy. The page from which you are referencing does not mention 666, so it is pointless anyway. Also, the page itself is unsourced original research. I will continue to remove it as long as it is added. Carl.bunderson 21:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


no it does mention the 666 if you actually took the time to read it as you clearly did not do otherwise you would have found it within the text. look up the thing yourself i dont even care what you think your a control freak. you accuse people of vandalizim when you yourself abuse the rights of other users on wikipedia by relentlessly attacking them. I no longer wish to have anything to do with you further so if you will delete my USER page from your watch list it would be much appreciated and all conflicts can be resolved in the best intrests of wikipedia or shall i bring in an admin to deal with it danieljackson 01:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It does not mention 666. I used my browser's search function looking for '666' and it found nothing. You have a history of vandalism, having even been blocked for it back in May. If your desire is to keep your talk page neat, you are welcome to archive it. However, it is in bad faith to delete legitimate comments on your user talk page. I have an interest in keeping Wikipedians honest and I will not stand by while you make yourself appear not to be a vandal. Furthermore, you claim to have been a wikipedian since it started in 2001. However, your first edit is from 9 January 2006. Either you are lieing or you have a different account. However, I will keep your talk page on my watchlist as I have every interest in monitoring any further reports of vandalism on your part. Carl.bunderson 02:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe he is talking about this "The Vampire Demon Digimon was seemingly destroyed. However at six minutes and six seconds after six o'clock he reconfigured himself as an Ultimate (Dub: Mega) level Digimon known as Venomvandemon (Dub: Venomyotismon)." 24.139.160.37 06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for finding that for me. May I ask what you think of the underlying issue, as to whether this should be admitted into Wikipedia? Carl.bunderson 06:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Future

  • This arcticle in English Wikipedia is very small. Other languages have bigger articles on this topic. Could you help to expand this article, please? - Vald 10:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll take a look at it. Carl.bunderson 18:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Incidently, I hope I haven't offended you in reverting some of your edits. I just found them either unnecessary, or original research/unsourced. Carl.bunderson 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanking a user talk page

I noticed your edits to Danieljackson's talk page and was wondering if you show me the WP policy where it explicitly states that deleting warnings & comments from user's own discussion pages is vandalism. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru 20:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While not strictly prohibited it is a bad faith practise. "On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded as uncivil." per [3]. It is inappropriate to blank your talk page, making it appear that you have no history of vandalism. The user is parading himself as an upstanding wiki-citizen, despite the fact that his user talk page will demonstrate that he has a history of vandalism, was blocked on 7 May 2007, and has been in conflict with David Fuchs about his blanking the page. If he wishes to keep the page from becoming cluttered, he is welcome to archive. The user has a history of vandalism, and we must not give him an inch, in the interest of keeping him from taking a mile. Carl.bunderson 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not a policy however. I was under the impression that there was something official on it, it's just an editing guideline, I will keep the {{uw-tpv}} warnings in mind next time a disruptive user deletes messages without a reason. Much thanks, {^_^} Lord Sesshomaru 17:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, its not a hard-n-fast policy, but it is certainly a guidline and I think that it can be justified in being presented as a policy given WP policies on maintaining good faith and ingoring all rules in the interest of furthering the encyclopedia. Carl.bunderson 17:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 42

I'm not sure where the content came from, but I assume you didn't actually intend to put it in the main article namespace? Seattlenow 05:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was trying to archive a talk page and missed the crucial / . I was actually just trying to put it in the speedy deletion process when I noticed my talk notification in a diff window. If you're an admin, please go ahead and delete it. Thanks for the speedy catch! Carl.bunderson 05:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, if you accidentally create a page and want it deleted, you can use the {{db-author}} speedy deletion tag to have it removed right away. It's faster than using a prod. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 05:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Lynk. I do hope I won't have to use it again though. Carl.bunderson 05:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Lolita pornography. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

LBGT something, 24 August 2007 (heading added subsequently for clarification)

Rozi 18:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Why did you edit the LBGT movement page? Those links are inportant to me and to an activist who's trying to get same-sex marriage legalized. It doesn't make sense to me. If you could message me by replying on my profile page, that would be greatly appreciated.


Anglican collaboration of the month

Wassupwestcoast 02:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Christianity (heading added for clarification)

Hey carl Mojo here anywhos how does one go about getting sourcs on a totally bias subject like christianity which even if i did get them would bully and cry until the cows come home and it gets changed anyway?

If you want to criticize Christianity on WP, you need to find published books which do it. You have to cite the books. If you do this, your contributions won't be reverted for being unsourced. Carl.bunderson 02:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark of the beast, a form of money. Who is controversial?

The controversy started 7 November 2007 by Wrage. Until then, and for a very long time, many people accepted that that the mark of the beast seems to be a form of money. So who is the controversial, me or you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 08:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Rev does not say that the mark is money...it says that the mark is a prerequisite for engaging in commerce. It is not the actual means of exchanging goods and services. Absent a source, your addition is opininion--and that is original research. Carl.bunderson 08:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply re adminship

Hi there Carl. Have replied now to your enquiry here. Best, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for reverting and also updating counter on my userpage. Dekisugi (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Mr. .bunderson, why did you revert that other user's inclusion in Randy and Sharon Marsh? They certainly weren't doing any vandalism. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It didn't improve the article: it was inserted right in the middle of a paragraph about a different episode, and was poorly written. If a change doesn't improve the encyclopedia, it should be reverted. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be reverted, it should be moved to the appropriate place, and have the wording perfected. Put in a half-baked effort, come out with a half-baked encyclopedia. I think when I notice these things, I'll take them into my own hands in future. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, it should be moved and perfected. But there is so much mediocre stuff on WP that I just can't stand to fix it all. At times its easier to revert than to correct. And I do think that reverting mediocre additions is better than doing nothing, when you haven't the drive to fix them. And if nothing else, I imainge you're going to fix it, so the WP machine has been improved: a little by me, a lot by you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Aw, thanks! (blushes, and hides away) That's the nicest present anyone on Wikipedia's ever given me! It really feels good to know that your efforts - done or potential - are appreciated. And in response:

Wilhelmina Will (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that was really cool to see when I came on today. Have a good afternoon. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. I provided The Constitution of Afghanistan as source, nothing can be stronger than that. Please do not revert my edits just for a simple thing you re-added. Or else I will report you to administrators. Thank you.--Hurooz (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion of sourced content. I did not remove "Afghan" from the list of demonyms. My wish is to maintain all sourced content, while you are trying to delete sourced content. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I never said that we only use constitution. The constitution of any nation is the top, nothing else is higher than that except God's laws of course. Usually not too many people have disputes on other nation's denoms because we all know this. When there is a dispute like now, we must use the top source. Every constitution of Afghanistan from 1923, 1964, 1973, 1987, 2004 clearly stated in it in text ....regardless of their ethnic background "all the citizens of Afghanistan shall be called by the name Afghan"... That's the official name the people of Afghanistan chose and we suppose to call them that name.--Hurooz (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that the constitution of a nation should be the "top" source for its demonym. I think that WP needs to show what is used, not what should be used. Personally, I think we should call them Afghans. The others sound stupid and uneducated. But, people use them, they are documented, so WP needs to preserve that documentation. The articles on Indian cities need to use their new names, but preserve record of their colonial British names as well. (eg don't try to act like Kolkatta wasn't called Calcutta--and still is by many). Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of 'spam' links

Hello Carl: I am interested in learning more about your rationale and the criteria used in your decision to repeatedly remove the link to www.discover-your-type.com from the MBTI article. --Beegpapi (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not meet the criteria for inclusion under EL on WP. On the exernal links guideline page, it falls foul on the following counts: #4 Links mainly intended to promote a website.
  1. 5 Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

The link is just promoting the website, which does not exist to teach people about MBTI. ELs on this page should only be pages which inform about MBTI or offer free tests. The links to tests I clicked on page led me to such places as this [4], which require payment to take the test. This is spam, and I will again remove the link, until I am convinced it is not spam. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carl.bunderson/Archive_1&oldid=1074475099"