User talk:Carl.bunderson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Response.

Hi Carl, Please see my talk page for a response to your recent inquiry. Bytebear (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Afghanistan - denonyms

From Talk:Afghanistan: I don't mind a footnote at all for showing that other terms have been used for Afghan. It was not the entry in the Am.Hert.Dict. that was affectation, the use is affectation. The Am.Hert.Dict., as one may note in its introduction, just records usage, it is not prescriptive. --Bejnar (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And nor is the OED prescriptive. And I suppose that with your distinction, I can agree that Afghani is an affectation; I myself would not use it. However, affections can become acknowledged words (e.g. ginormous). So I will shortly rv to your version, and add a footnote about Afghani. Thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Used

That's fine. I could see you were reverting an IP's changes. I recently emptied that category, so now just keep an eye out for anything that creeps back in... Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

the used page

i was able to work with u and keep the page that way although i dont like it, i added some info and sources to try to make it better, just wanted to let u no :) Usedfan1989 (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Hi, remember to mark yours reverts as minor edits per Help:Minor edit. Cheers. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 10:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Your Input, But Please Tread Gently

Carl: Your skills as an editor are greatly appreciated. Looking through your contribution history, I can see that the vast majority of your edits are very well-reasoned and rational, and based on your education and subject matter expertise. However, you made a recent reversion in the Survivalism page that I suspect was made without realization that the link that you deleted was to one of the main blogs on the subject of survivalism. SurvivalBlog has more than 50,000 unique visitors per week, with readers worldwide. The blog is considered a standard reference on the subject, and it has deep archives of practical data of considerable interest to survivalists. It is NOT a paid commercial site. ALL of the information at SurvivalBlog is available to the public at large, without any mandatory subscriptions of password protection. It is also notable that this blog is cited in the main body of the Wiki article--not just in the external links list.

If your edit were in a page on Anglican or Catholic apologetics or one of your other areas of expertise, I would defer to your expertise and judgment. But in this case, please defer to my expertise. I am much closer to the topic than you are. (See my contribution history.) So in this particular case, I believe that I am a much better judge of relevance, vis-a-vis Survivalism.

Thank you once again for the many hours that you devote to the improvement of Wikipedia. Sincerely, - Jeff Trasel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trasel (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm still wary of blogs, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in this. The fact that Jim Rawles survived a notability question on his WP page I suppose can allow him to fall under the "recognized authority" clause of the blog policy on ELs. I won't revert that addition any more. Thanks for your civility, Jeff. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning: 3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.186.223 (talk • contribs)

Please, everyone note that this was added by the anon with whom I am edit-warring, because he is deleting justified notability and sourcing-issue templates on several pages. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You were not edit-warring, Carl, you were reverting vandalism - which is an entirely different matter. So thanks are in order, and you have mine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jack, I really appreciate the thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew

Jack did the same thing, yet you don't warn him. Perhaps you should do so.

I don't give a crap what Jack did right now. You are deleting templates without discussing first. There is no excuse for that. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Idiot

I see idiots never listen to reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.146.206 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, the anon who was shortly blocked for his lack of discussion before removing templates, and for evading another block, as referring to himself. 22:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request input, assistance as possible

Carl, I wanted to ask for your thoughts and possible assistance in touching up and expanding the page Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists. Based on your comments in some articles or deletion discussions in which we have both been a part, I believe that you may have a similar viewpoint and be better at explaining the purpose of the page, which is Precedent as it applies to Wikipedia. The essay is in its early form and needs continued expansion (with solid examples). If and when you have a few moments, please take a look at it and let us know what you think or help to build the page up more. Many Thanks! VigilancePrime (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC) :-)

Sure, I'll take a look at it. Thanks for wanting my input. And I love that we ran into eachother in such disparate articles, by the way. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Hughes entry in Radio

Carl, Why do you keep removing my corrections to the David E. Hughes entry in Radio? To say that he transmitted on SLF is idiotic and meaningless. To claim a Clockwork transmitter is also pretty silly.

The references state that he was transmitting via a simple Spark Transmitter, and receiving via a Detector made from a non-linear contact based on a Carbon Microphone. He used a Telephone Earpiece to hear the "clicks" from the transmitter (in this he was way ahead of Marconi, who initially used a Coherer to ring a bell).

He clearly did not transmit on SLF and did not transmit Morse Code.

His Spark Transmitter was keyed via a Clockwork driven contact (eg his modulator was "Clockwork", not his Transmitter).

References. "A History of Wireless Telegraphy" by Fahie. "The Story of Wireless Telegraphy" by A.T.Story Page 108.

Please do not vandalise my contributions in future.

Gutta Percha (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Gutta Percha

---

Your edit was poorly done. It didn't even make sense. That is why I reverted it, it was hardly vandalism. Write a cogent sentence and incorporate it into the article nicely, and it will stay. Carl.bunderson (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've edited your last contribution to make it sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia. And please note why I reverted it the first time: "*In 1887, David E. Hughes In 1878, David E. Hughes transmitted signals by radio using a clockwork keyed transmitter. He achieved a range of 300 Metres or so." Can you honestly tell me that looks like it improved the encyclopedia? I don't know anything bout Hughes, idk if he did this in 1887 or 8, so I left it up to you to fix it, but until it was fixed there was no need for it to remain there, making WP look like no one tries to keep it in working order. Carl.bunderson (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Yes, I apologize for the typo, but it wasn't the first time you changed it. And no mention of the real issues: Why SLF, why Morse Code, Why Clockwork? You even admit you know nothing of the subject. This is the whole problem with Wickipedia Gutta Percha (talk)

---

Typos matter. They make WP look bad, and I didn't know if it was 1887 or 1888 and since you made the edit as far as I'm concerned it's on you to fix it. I haven't reverted your most recent edit, if you'll notice. You're missing my point from before: "*In 1887, David E. Hughes In 1878, David E. Hughes transmitted..." makes WP look like shit. That doesn't even make sense. It is not a sentence. Quit bitching and accept that I am doing my part to make the encyclopedia look decent. When you write cogent sentences I won't revert them. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK , Let's Talk About It , from Pilot

Carl , I'm Pilot ......... I edited the openning to the article to include the 4 sentences talking about Testament means and is interchangable with Covenant ...... It is an important element , also the terms Holy Bible , Word of God , Scriptures that were added by another prior are as well important elements .......... you say you talked about your edit on the talk page , OK , I saw it tonight ........ no one talked to you about your suggestion much at all , did they ?? .......... I also discussed my edit that I mentioned to you , and there was quit a bit of discussion ..... I gave credible references to cite what I added , and they are valid ......... more , see definition # 4 in this Encarta link which is typical of dictionary , [1] ........ the definition of testament in relation to Judaism/Christianity ......... if you want to revert what I have added , you should talk to me first don't you think , especially since the edit stood and was valid with proper refs. and an important aspect of Old and New Testaments .......... Pilotwingz (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

More , I did not take away ( deleat ) anything from the articles opening when I incorperated my edit ........ you for some reason think you can just deleat what others have diligently incorperated after discussion and work before an edit ......... you should know better than to deleat others credible work ......... Pilotwingz (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was open, it is not my fault you didn't contribute to the discussion. I can't assume that people that don't bother to speak up are going to have a problem with what is discussed. The things you added are good, and well referenced, I'm not saying they aren't. But they do not need to be in the intro. Intros should be kept relatively short. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC):

The discussion is back on Carl ...... I contest your deleating valid cited work done by others previously , especially mine ......... you should never delete others work that has been properly completed with out a solid consenses which you did not even come close to ........ consider when others don't engage you in a new talk post discussion , it may be because they are politely telling you they aren't interested in your suggestion ......... Pilotwingz (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's assinine. If they don' agree, they need to speak up. How many people respect Nixon for referring to the silent majority? And I replied on the article talk page, if you hadn't seen it yet. I'm totally open to discussing things, I honestly felt like what I did was not opposed, seeing as how no one bothered to oppose it. Kinda that whole "be bold" policy. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well , it's opposed now , by an original contributor , I undo you deletions and you insist to undo my installing the original works .......... wouldn't it be more polite and professional to leave the original back in place fot the time being now that I have contested your deletions of prior work ?? ......... Pilotwingz (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Grendel

The article on Grendel's mother contains many pictures of seemingly unrelated characters. Thought I'd do the same for her son.Dark hyena (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Afghanistan

First of all, there is no need to "compromise" by hiding information where 99.9% of the readers will not see it. Most readers will see the "1" and think it is sourced as the denonym being Afghan and nothing else. Please don't call this a compromise. It's so silly it's actually annoying. Call it what it is, hiding information.

By the way:

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

KabuliTajik (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever read a footnote? That is what foonotes do, they give extra information. Look at the talk page. And that 3rr can go on ur page just as easily. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have. I know what they do. But 99.9% of the readers will not think to go find needles in haystacks in the footnotes section. Yes, but I did not violate the rule yet... you did. I won't report you, but please stop being silly by calling it a "compromise". KabuliTajik (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We should not pander to lazy-ass readers. If they don't bother to read footnotes, that's their own fault. And I am not being silly, seriously, go and read the conversation, I'm not the only one who thinks its a compromise. I wasn't even the one who came up with it in the first place. You should realize that the fact that you haven't bothered to participate in the discussion, and reverted without discussion first, makes you look like you are unwilling to be reasonable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand the audience of this encyclopedia. They are not professors, they are average people. Only a scholar would go and search the footnotes for additional information. Maybe you are a scholar, but 99% of people are not. If you didn't come up with this so called "compromise"... then please first of all stop calling it that and secondly stop blindly following it. The person who came up with it has certain POVs and is not a neutral editor. He supports Afghan nationalism, which should have no place on an encyclopedia. If you are dedicated to providing scholarly information that can be easily accessed, then switch sides please. I haven't participated in the discussion yet because so far a good enough reason to remove referenced content has not been provided. KabuliTajik (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at the discussion. The people do not have POVs. They're don't have anything to do with Afghanistan. They just want to make a good encyclopedia. And you really can't spurn the discussion because you don't like it. Make a case that there isn't a good reason, and people will listen to you. Until then, you come off as a POV-pusher yourself. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at Bejnar's edits and he clearly edits clearly support "Afghan nationalism". What POV? This is referenced content. It is Bejnar the is REMOVING sourced content because he claims it is not preferred. That is what is called a POV. KabuliTajik (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Zoolander edit

While I can appreciate your comment on needing a reference, you should note that all the other mentions of parody in the movie are also un-referenced, such as the allusions to Mark Vanderloo, Star Trek's Mugatu or Robert Moog. As well they should be, parody is meant to be self-evident and is rarely footnoted either on wikipedia or peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Creators rarely mention all the work they parody, even in interviews.

In the case of my contribution to the Zoolander page, Mugler is clearly a source for Mugatu: the names are three-letters apart; his accent and speech patterns are very similar and, most importantly, the clothes worn by Muagtu and his henchmen are all Mugler design knock-offs.

I am quite familiar with proper footnoting and referencing with regards to parody and allusion as a doctoral candidate in the humanities at Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences: Joaquin Terrones jsterron@fas.harvard.edu. Thank you for your input but please in the future make sure your edits are valid and if in doubt post on the talk page first. Good luck with your MA!

--Jsterron (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it seemed like I was attacking your contribution while turning a blind eye to the others. It's not that at all; rather, I feel it is too big of a task to fix all the OR problems on here, so I just try to stem the tide. I still think that unreferenced parody, while I believe you that it is obvious, is unreferenced and as such should not be in here. Why don't we just delete the entire section, seeing as how it is all OR? And thank you for your warm wishes. Good luck with your dissertation and everything. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. However, you are still missing the point: parody and allusion don't need to be referenced through a secondary source -- the primary source material is the reference. Which is why all the mentions of parody in the article (and most articles on literature and film) simply have a link pointing to the work, person, situation, etc. being alluded to or parodied. This is not just common practice in wikipedia; it is standard across the board in peer-reviewed scholarly publications in literary criticism and media studies. You don't need to take my word on it as a scholar in both fields; hopefully, the argument stands on its own. --Jsterron (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

AntiFascism

Sorry about the edits to the Afghanistan article by AntiFascism who is the latest sockpuppet of either Beh-nam or Tajik. BamyanMan was yesterday's incarnation, which is now blocked. Let me know if this happens again. There is no point in edit wars, but avoiding them with Beh-nam's sockpuppets and Anoshirawan is difficult. They have an agenda apparently, and won't listen to any arguments, rational or otherwise. See for example what they have been doing to Demography of Afghanistan where the citation to Encyc. Iranica for the ethno percentages is totally bogus. --Bejnar (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's hardly your fault. Yeah, I'll put something on your talk next time it happens. As I just put on the talk page, why don't we get Afghanistan semi-protected indefinitely to help kerb this tendency? Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Carl.bunderson_reported_by_User:65.94.218.24_.28Result:_.29. Do you have experience with this banned user? Is there an existing checkuser request open regarding him/her? --B (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do, I was reverting his vandalism on Afghanistan. I don't know enough about the checkuser process to answer your other question though; I'm sorry. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Argentina

Could you please take a look at the latest developments at Argentina and Talk:Argentina? The user is POV-pushing and bordering on vandalism. Moreover, there is a possible case of sock puppetry. --the Dúnadan 23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you've gotten to an agreeable consensus, so I won't say anything now. But it's still on my watchlist and I'm back now, so if anything happens I'll weigh in. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

vandal

Hi I reverted a vandal - self-admitted. Check your page histories if you care to review. --Jack Merridew 10:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack, I appreciate it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

History Of Tango Not "Vandalised" as suggested

Hi there! My name is Magiko and have been editing wrong assumptions and mistakes made in the History Of Tango article. Please do understand that I am not a "vandal". On he contrary, I am someone that cares about contributing correct and accurate articles to Wikipedia, especially about one of my favourite subjects: Tango. Just to let you know, I am an expert in Tango matters for several reasons: I am Argentine, born in Buenos Aires. I am a professional award-winning film and stage composer living in London and have enjoyed the teachings of great tango teachers and composers in the past (including Astor Piazzolla as well as others). In fact, I am especially interested in correcting the absolutely wrong assumption that Tango has any roots and/or has been influenced by African music, rhythms and/or culture in any way or form. This statement is absolutely incorrect. Argentina (the Tango's country of origin) never had any African people among their multi-racial communities at all. There seem to be a big confusion by many people between what Argentina is (and represents) and what Brazil is (and represents). Tango is not Samba. Tango has its roots in the European immigrants communities present in Buenos Aires at the beginning of the last century. Please do understand that all I am trying to do is to correct a big mistake - and not trying to either produce a problem or edit the articles about tango with erroneous or false information.

Also, please be so kind as to let me know how to edit the above mentioned article in such a way that it can remain in Wikipedia without beeing deleted time and time again. Thanks you very much for your help and cooperation.

With kind regards,

Magiko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magiko (talk • contribs) 15:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Magiko. In calling your edits vandalism I wasn't suggesting they were not in good faith; I can believe that they were. But your edits which I reverted, like on 19 December, I would say are in a grey area of vandalism. They aren't explicitly listed under vandalism, but the WP:Vandalism page doesn't address the specific issue. You deleted sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content; even if not vandalism, it does fall under the automated "delete" warnings I placed on your talk page. WP is meant to all be sourced; ie every statement in WP should be able to be found in a verifiable work. Sourced content is always (or very nearly always (disclaimer)) preferred to unsourced content, so when someone replaces sourced content with unsourced, it is likely to be reverted by someone else.

So, as long as you find a source for your content, it can be added. Having said that, if someone calls your source into question, and has good reason for thinking it is itself POV or unreliable, it may be removed, but in that case it is more likely to be done through discussion on talk pages. So please find sources for what you want to add, and do so.

Also, please remember that WP is concerned not with truth, but fact (ie verifiability). "Truth" is often upheld by POV-pushers, so if you're concerned with the "truth" about tango, a "truth" which can't be sourced, it won't be allowed in. I hope this all helps, and thanks for wanting to contribute to WP. I'll always be willing to discuss edits and such with you, providing you are reasonable and willing to actually discuss. :) Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pole dance

You removed my categorisation of Pole dance under dance equipment. The main point of the article may be to describe the activiy but there is a good description of the standard pole and it would be silly to split it off. I think it is something which people looking up dance equipment might want to see. I'll stick it back in for the moment, perhaps you can point to something saying that categorization must be of an exact is-a type for articles? Dmcq (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I only looked at the lead, which didn't seem to fit in the category, and it looked like the only article in the category that wasn't strictly equipment. You do have good rationale for the category, as you've explained. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Deletion of 264 Squadron link on List of SR WC/BB Classes

Hello, I realise that you have since rectified this issue, but may I ask why did you delete the link in the first place? It has me quite perplexed. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Um could you point me to the article in question? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. When was this? But chances are it seemed spammy to me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jizya

I saw your comment here. It is interesting that you are studying about this in a university/college. Can you recommend to me some literature that discuss the economic (not political) side of jizya? Please respond on my talk page. Bless sins (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and find something. I did econ for my undergrad, and I know I read at least one paper on historical Muslim economics. If I can find it I'll get it to you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I only found one decent article on it, and that only talks about the effect of the general type of tax which jizya is. If you do want it, I can email it to you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam? Excuse Me?

What are all these 3 second unfounded "accusations" of spam? Please reads the links carefully and get to know a user's past contributions ans the effort they have put into editing many pages before making sudden accusations as judge/jury/wikidefender all bundled in one. Is this a new paradigm for wiki-justice being tried out by you guys, or is this an automated bot doing this?

I pointed out a free book that I had just printed myself, after another user edited de Montfort's page and his link interested me, and I found a better link. I printed the book for myself free an hour ago or so, and thought others may want to know that too. Here is what I wrote back to Andrewc who posted that message:

Excuse me? Spam? Me? What on earth gave you that idea? I have no gain or interest in free links on websites run by others. Yesterday, some other user edited the page on de Montfort and pointed out that his book was available free on line. I searched and realized it was available free. I had been intending to buy that book myself until I noticed it is free. I printed out the book for myself, because I had not actually read it and could not be bothered to order it from Amazon. I thought other people may also want to know that instead of buying it. Spammming is when tries to GAIN something. I gain nothing by editing Wikipedia. I still think other people need to know that the book is available free. And stop "threatening" me with losing priviledges. I am a computer expert and know what I am doing on any web site. But I am also an ethical person that does not spam for ANY reason and your comments are offensive to me and I think I deserve an apology from you. Real question: what is the official policy for letting peopel know that something is free (as another user pointed out to me) without having someone like you get all upset. Thanks History2007 (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Please be more careful and read the pages and follow the links much more carefully when reverting edits, for some of the edits you reverted had to do with spelling, factual information including historical dates, and image size balances, etc. I think you just assumed that I was promotng some product of some sort because I said something was free - and I was not. So you reverted too many other edits that had to do with spelling, dates, etc. Anyway, perhaps we should let this matter cool off and go from there. Thanks History2007 (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consider apologizing to me. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The way you are going about it is spammy. Inserting text promoting free online copies of works to several different WP pages is characteristic of a spammer. Deleting warnings off your talk page is characteristic of a spammer. You may have been adding your links in good faith, but I will do no such thing as apologize to you. Spamming on WP has more to do with blanketing pages and promoting particular websties than with monetary gain as the incentive for doing so. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To link to a free copy of something, please simply include an innocuous EL along with all the other ELs at the end of a page, where they belong. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: By the way Carl, please READ the Louis de Montfort page as you have left it now. It has a "free on line link" by the previous user (who pointed out to me it was free) but his link is not formatted right. So you took a well formatted link that I had and restored to a porly formatted free link that the previous user had left. Please read "carefully" before reverting. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse me if I respond hastily to spammers. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries my friend. I think tye spammers had got on your nerves before, so you wanted to banish them all, so you acted quickly. Have a good evening. Regards History2007 (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, though I maintain that it is bad faith of you to just delete warnings off your talk page. It would look less like you're trying to evade bad history if you just replied with an explanation of what happened, or archived the page from time to time (as many established editors do). Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And you're right, if it seems I'm treating you harshly it is because I deal with so much vandalism and spam that it evokes a strong reaction to it. I can see you have good faith, though I hope you can appreciate why I disagree with you deleting comments off your talk page. I essentially view it as trying to cover up a shady past, and as such take it as bad faith. I've gotten warnings for things before (I think there are a couple on my archive) and I think it does a better job of demonstrating good faith to simply respond with why you believe they were undeserved. While it is possible to go through the history of a user talk page to find past warnings (the typical defence of "I wanna delete my warnings"), it is a pain in the butt to do so, and archives are considerably easier. Please respond if you feel it is in good faith to continue simply deleting comments you dislike off your talk page. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just added a defence of you to your talk page, like unto the one I suggested you add in my last couple comments here. Hope it shows good faith on my part. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, in the long run, all this will be history. I think you spend effort doing this (unpaid) because you want to do soemthing positive. So no worries at all, it will all work out. The key is not to get too upset for calm and peace are key ingriedienst to good health anyway - nervousness and arguments do little good. take care History2007 (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am just trying to see who is more stubborn.... I think each person should have control over their own talk page. What you must remember that real spammers can just start new user names at a starbucks and do not even need to worry about talk pages. So all these assumptions about identifying spammers etc. seems to me to be undue policing and very ineffective policing at that anyway, for it would make for a comedy of some type. It is really hard to detect spammers if they set their mind to it - and they don't even need ot be geniuses. So I think you are getting worked up for nothing. The fact that you have to over-react to things is an indication that the current anti-spam techniques at Wikepedia are too manpower intensive. I wonder if I can actually suggest a better anti-spam strategy. The first thouught that comes to mind is a database of spammed links, so they can be looked up, but even that could be easily bypassed by some semi-clever redirects. I think a better use for your time would be to seek my help as an expert computer science type to help you banish the spammers rather than fight trivia on my talk page.

So do you want me to help you fight spam? History2007 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While I think people own their talk page, refactoring the comments of others, and selectively deleting them, is bad faith; there is no reason not to archive. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just object to being monitored with inadequate and crude techniques... And you seem to like to monitor... I think I have said what I have to say... In parting, let me venture a guess Carl that deep down you had at one point a supressed desire to be a policeman or a correctional officer... Now it is manifesting itself on the web.... You want to "do right".... It reminds me of one of the two Ritchies: he was a theology student (his Wiki bio missed that fact) then a correctional officer, then a big time trader, still trying to "do good". Maybe one day you will also find your way to the trading floor... good luck my friend... History2007 (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

France

I've been trying to include the PPP GDP for France in the introduction but user:JdeJ is fiercely pro-French and won't allow PPP to be added in the intro because France is only seventh in terms of PPP GDP. The PPP GDP ranking of the UK has been included in the UK's intro. Just a helpful tip that they don't accept any edits that might make France in anyway look bad. Signsolid (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

They seemed to have a good reason for it, and it is already in the infobox. Why not just remove it from the UK page too. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what Signsolid thinks, I'm not pro-French and less than 5% of my edits deal with France-related topics. He has attacked my nationality, my supposed political views and has been spreading lies about my edits. I have reported him for harassment JdeJ (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Aleenf1 08:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Put in on your page as well.....Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You making 4 edits a day, i'm 3, that is not violation. --Aleenf1 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI thread

There is a discussion here involving you. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 08:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Rod. Have you noticed that he has not addressed my issues either, and has also reverted w/o discussion, for the record? Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)