User talk:Carl.bunderson/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Cuisine of Afghanistan

It seems that the discussion page for the article on Afghanistan is protected, so I can't post a new topic on the talk page, even when I created an account and signed in (??) Did I get that right? I see that you've done a lot of work on that article and wondered if I could make a suggestion directly to you, since the talk page is closed?? If I CAN make that request here, I'd like to suggest that there should be a section in the article on the cuisine of Afghanistan. I just tried it today (the food that is, not the section) and it's distinctive. They use different spices than other kinds of cuisine from the region, like India. I wanted to learn about it but there's nothing on wikipedia. A lot of other articles about countries include the cuisine. It seems like kindof a big hole in the information that's available here about Afghanistan. Thanks! Collegekid13 (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC) CollegeKid13

I think it's semi-protected, which means that even if you have an account, you can't edit until you've made a certain number of edits, which I think is like between 20 and 50, but I'm not exactly sure. Anyhow, there is an article Cuisine of Afghanistan which I added to the See also section on Afghanistan. And I'll mention including an actual mention of it in the culture section and see what people think. My only hesitation is that the article is longer than ideal, so I want to avoid adding info to it when we can just have a wikilink. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Corpus Christi (feast): Thanks

Thanks for your help with my confusion about Corpus Christi (feast). Your edits to the article helped me to understand it better.
My reply to Carolynparrishfan on the Talk page was directed only to her post there. I posted about this to her Talk page, and I'll repeat it here: "I'm not trying to be troublesome, I'm just dense I guess." :-)
I'm okay with the article now! Have a good one! -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad I could help. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

==reversion on Shrink Rap disambiguation page

Carl, you removed my edit to Shrink Rap due to nn. I'm a relative newbie here but I found that nn means "non-notable". Since our Shrink Rap blog is the top "psychiatry blog" (per google) and has been around for more than 2 yrs with more than 700 pieces of informative, original content, I would argue that it meets some test of "notability". It is also the first hit when googling "shrink rap." Thus, some folks will look for it on Wikipedia. Since one of the guidelines for Wikipedia is disambiguation, I suggest that it is appropriate to mention it in this disambiguation page, and that it is beyond mere self-promotion. Since I don't really understand the etiquette here, I will hold off on reverting the edit back until I hear from you. Thanks. Shrinkroy (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there are multiple issues here, really three. First: it is non-notable on that page because it is a disambiguation pages. Dab pages are meant merely to move users to the articles for which they are looking, not to give them any actual info on the subject. Therefore, external links are no appropriate for dab pages.

Furthermore, there are two reasons that your EL would have been removed, even on a relevant wiki-page. First, blogs are "normally to be avoided" as far as external links go. Therefore I remove ELs to blogs on-sight. Second, users are barred from adding links to sites with which they are affiliated. Doing this runs afoul of the conflict-of-interest and spam policies.

Thank you for consideration and willingness to enquire why it was removed, rather than blindly re-adding. Have a good day, Roy. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, be patient, I'm learning here...

1-Why is it that blogs are "normally to be avoided" but not books, movies, other media, and does that mean "always avoided?"

2-What are the appropriate circumstances where blogs would be okay?

3-You said "as far as links go." Does that mean that mentioning an appropriate blog is okay if there is no external link?

4-WP:COI says that "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies", so does that mean that it is not always true that "users are barred from adding links to sited with which they are affiliated"? If it is true, can you refer me to where it says that? Thanks! Shrinkroy (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I think the reasoning on avoiding blogs is that they're by nature not particularly verified, scholarly works. They tend to be persons' musings, and we try to link to things that are more than glorified editorials. That said, it does not mean "always avoided", and it specifically says that blogs written by professional-types are ok, which looks to apply to yours. And the linking policy doesn't really apply to books, movies, and other media, as they can't be in the 'external links' section.

There isn't a specific policy as to where blogs are ok at, at least to my knowledge. I generally discourage them, for the reasons cited above. The only time I've not opposed linking to a blog was when the particular blog was used as a reference, and was actually referenced with footnotes. Because of that, it seemed that it wasn't the typical "these are my opinions" blog.

I meant "as far as [external] links go" in reference to how the EL policy is worded. If you follow the wikilink up there above, the section to which I was referring is called "Links morally to be avoided"; that's all I meant by it. I would say that mentioning a blog but not linking to it is still self-promotion and therefore a kind of spam.

There is a difference between editing in an area in which you have professional academic expertise, and adding external links. Editing involves adding information (prose) to the article, or sourcing material already there. Users who just add ELs flag themselves as spammers to many wikipedians. When it talkes about "using material you yourself have written or published" refers not to adding ELs, but using that material to provide sources for info found in the prose of articles; e.g., you are free to use an article from an academic journal that you yourself wrote, as a source for material here. However, blogs (generally) can't be used as sources because they do not (typically) meet reliable source guidelines. From the External links page again: "Due to the rising prominence of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it." It says, "you should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent". Granted, this does not say "you may never link"; but nonetheless it is clearly against the spirit of WP policy to link to sites with which you are associated.

It looks to me like adding your blog to the page was meant to send people your way. This is the kind of thing discouraged by the COI policy. Really, things that don't have their own WP articles shouldn't be mentioned on dab pages, so as soon as I finish this I'm going to remove the other items on the page which are redlinked or not linked--these are general indicators of non-notability, if they don't have an article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Very helpful. Shrinkroy (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

dont forget NisarKand

User:Charsada. Naturally I'm sure you will ignore him as you have so far since you support Afghan nationalism and Pashtun racists such as NisarKand.

You're full of it. As far as I'm concerned both of you are potential socks. If I was really that prejudiced against you I would have removed the suspected sock tags you put on his user page. And before accusing me of supporting racists, consider which of us wrote, as an edit summary, "You live in Pakistan where you cannot get a good education. I have a top education from Western countries." Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not racism. Go read the racism article learn what racism is. Or go read your favorite dictionary (OED) and learn what racism is. That is a fact that the education in Western countries is better than the developing world. Anyone can tell you that and if it would be ridiculous to suggest that's racist. You must as well accuse people who say Pakistan has worse health care system than Western countries as racist.

Request for help with Antiochian Catholic Church in America article

I realize this article does not fall within your primary purview, but I would appreciate your help in protecting it from edits which are, at best, POV, and at worst, defamatory and/or vandalism, emanating from a suspended deacon-monk of this Church, of which, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a priest. Thanks in advance for your help in this matter, and if you have comments, questions, or concerns, please contact me via my talk page. --Midnite Critic (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it on my watchlist and do what I can. Thanks for wanting my help. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and you're welcome. While I don't believe you and I have crossed paths before, I have also made the same request of a couple of other editors I've worked with previously. --Midnite Critic (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Link

I am not advertising anything and almost all links are to sites other than mine and as stated on the page I HAVE NO AFFILIATION WITH. I have been asked for this page so many times and just wanted to provide information for people coming to Tamarindo. I have even removed the name of my website from the title tags and almost all of the links to other pages in my website. This page is 100 times more relevent than * Tamarindo beachInformation about Playa Tamarindo and surroundings

Have a nice day and once again I couldnt care less about advertising for anyone I am just helping people out and thought i was doing something good. If it was seen the wrong way I have taken steps to minimize that appearance. It eeven has a great running map.. show me one website that has a running map of Tamarindo and people love running there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imblock (talk • contribs)

Whether or not you are associated with the site is irrelevant. There are many criteria for which pages may be inadmissable in the EL section of a wiki page. This particular page is part of a website of a hotel/resort type of thing. The activities page is trying to show people what they can do while they stay at that resort. Granted, it shows what people can do at Tamarindo wherever they stay, but because it is part of a commercial site, it is objectively spam, even though it was not your intent to be a spammar. I've removed about half of the existing ELs from the page which were similarly inadmissible under our EL policy.

And Rory, ty for moving this to the appropriate place. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

user: NisarKand added that sentence

That sentence was removed because NisarKand added it. It is known that NisarKand fakes sources and is dishonest. That sentence was added on this edit by user: Charsada who is now banned as a sockpuppet of NisarKand. So that is the reason it was removed. Also AISK.org contradicts the above sentence from Encyclopedia of Islam and AISK.org is just a school in Afghanistan that no longer even is open. It is not a reliable source especially when it contradicts Encyclopedia of Islam. Either way, it was added by banned user NisarKand and should be removed. Why do you always support him? Do you really support him and turn a blind eye purposely or do you somehow just not notice him?

By the way, it was NisarKand that got Beh-nam banned. User:DreamOfJeannie who Beh-nam got banned for edit warring with turned out to be a sockpuppet of NisarKand is now blocked. So Beh-nam shouldn't even be banned in the first place. If a banned user comes back and makes sockpuppets and gets you banned would you accept your ban? Probably not, then why do you have a problem with Beh-nam?

You're a sock, so I have little intention of paying you attention. You're the sock of a banned user, and I dislike both you and NisarKand. I checked out the aisk source, and it seems reliable enough to me. It's simply a reprint of a published work. It doesn't particularly matter that it contradicts the Encyclopedia of Islam reference; they are both reliable sources. The Encyclopedia of Islam is a straw-man for you...you added that ref yourself, so as far as I'm concerned they are both RSs added by unworthy socks. Remember, WP is about reliability, not truth. If two RS contradict one another, we put them both in. If you really wanted to bring this up seriously, then put your concerns on the talk page. Going directly to editing the page, doing the same thing you've done before, on different IPs and screennames, will only earn you more contempt. You have no choice but to accept your ban. Until you grow up and play by the rules, you will be treated as a shameless sock unworthy of respect. If you really should not have been banned, appeal your ban under your original username. If you are in fact right, you will be vindicated. If not, then stay off WP. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't care who you like or dislike. The fact is Beh-nam was banned because NisarKand made sockpuppets and used those sockpuppets to get Beh-nam banned through edit warring. The samething can be done to anyone. How about you get banned and the you see for yourself how hard it is to talk to arbcom?

AISK.org is not the original publiciation, Dupree would never claim such a ridicious thing. It is a school in Afghanistan and they will easily lie to maintain their nationalism. As for Encyclopedia Iranica, if you are such a scholar as you claim you should be able to get access to it and verify it for yourself.

Wikipedia does not belong to you. Guess what? I wrote much of A LOT of Afghanistan related articles. Without me these articles wouldn't even exist as I started many of them. If you don't like me then you can just delete whole articles and delete all my edits off of Afghanistan.

Before NisarKand got me banned I was one of the most respected users on Afghanistan related topics.

You on the other hand don't have a clue what you're talking about. You are just on Wikipedia to help you feel important to help with your self esteem. In real life you are a nobody I'm sure. You just like to act big and tough on the internet. I don't think you realize how pathetic that is. You are like a teenage computer nerd who goes on chatrooms to feel tough about himself. You have no self respect and I'm sure no one outside of Wikipedia respects you or would take seriously in real life. In real life you wouldn't dare tell me any of the above.

You need to grow up and stop acting like a teenage internet nerd and maybe then you can begin earning people's respect in REAL LIFE. You are unworthy reject in real life and that is why you like to act like a tough guy on the internet. It's very funny and pathetic. You are so ashamed of yourself in real life that you spent hours of your day editing articles like Afghanistan of which you know nothing about just to feel important and reduce your shame. You must feel really pathetic now how I read you so easily. It's ok, you can keep editing Wikipedia to feel better about yourself.

Start working within the bounds of WP and I won't treat you the way I do. It has been a long time since you one of the most respected users on Afghanistan related topics. You've become a joke...a POV-pushing sock whom everyone dreads dealing with. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

online car shopping.

What's your deal? Have you seen the page? I don't see how adding ONE link makes me a spammer of Wikipedia. Yes, I am aware Wikipedia uses nofollow tags for external links, I am not adding my website to get link juice, I am adding it because it provides real value for that section that it talks about. Just because you don't have complete knowledge of that particular topic doesn't mean it automatically equals spam. If you want to see what spam is, read the page again and check out all the links Web2Carz has inserted into the page. They may have used an alias or whatever to post it, but that is a more blatant spam than my one link within the aggregated classified section, which IS relevant for the topic.

EasyAutoSales (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen the page, it was shitty, and I fixed it. I removed all spam from the page, yours included. I didn't remove all of your text, I removed the links embedded in it. Granted, I don't know a lot about the topic, but im on here a lot, and I do know spam when I see it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.

Survivalism Links

• Reverted external links. Because www.survivalblog.com """""11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority""""" This is *James Wesley Rawles blog He seems to be considered a recognized authority on survival and survivalism by the editors of this Wikipedia page * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivalism Survivalism page] since his name is at top it. www.survivalblog.com not restricted per *[1]Wikipedia:External links guideline for removing links]. User did not follow [2]Wikipedia:External links guideline for removing links].

As for * A site related to survival and Survivalism It is not hard to tell that the site is not meant to promote a product, if you take a look at history of the site (there are ways to what a site over time and see what it looked like months sometimes year back) The site had no products for a long time. This site has too much useful info about survival and survivalism in their articles. Linking to each one would create too many links on a Wikipedia page. not restricted per[3]Wikipedia:External links guideline for removing links]. User did not follow [4]Wikipedia:External links guideline for removing links].

I have made more contributions to WP then you will ever know and I have read the EL guidelines more times then I care to admit and know them by haert. From what I have seen from your edits regarding these two ELs deals with something more of a personal nature then subject matter. If you have problems how people have presented their works on a website take it up it them in their blog or site and keep it off WP billylenks (talk) 01:14 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for user this user does not follow *[5]Wikipedia:External links guideline for removing links].

User removes links without proper really taking a look at them or makes claims that make no sense even if you prove him to b in the wrong per*[6]Wikipedia:External links guideline for removing links]. Admins should watch this user very close and maybe user more then one account billylenks (talk) 12:14 15 June 2008 (UTC)

All you have done is add links and try to defend your doing so. You've done nothing of merit on WP. Trasel, who has put enormous amounts of work into the page in question, plainly said he agreed with me. No one has defended you. It is your responsibility to defer, as two editors, the only editors to have responded, have argued against you. And learn the difference between then and than. Come back to WP once you've learned your elementary spelling. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that this is personal, seems to be something you are trying to get personal about. WP is not the place for it. What Trasel is talking about is not related to the links in question, he even clarified them more. The point being made here is that what you are doing is wrong per *[7]Wikipedia:External links guideline for removing links]. The same guidelines you claim to follow. One of the links you keep deleting has been posted before and has been found to be in the guide line so many many times over and over again. And if you keep on deleting links like these I will start including all the talk pages that have found the links to be in the guidelines so people can see how many problems you are creating on WP. billylenks (talk) 9:14 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing personal about it...I am simply ensuring that spam does not creep into WP pages. Trasel plainly agree with me on the talk page, and another user (El C) [sic], with far more edits than you have, also reverted the addition of your edits. Own up to the fact that you are in violation of policy and are playing games to get your way. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the WP page for editor for one of the links you keep removing *[8]Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SurvivalBlog].

Tell me in your own words does it pass the Test for section of the EL guide lines That is a yes or no answer """""11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority""""" The readers here can see it does and I know the readers on the survival pae can also see it as well.

Does his website pass www.survivalblog.com """""11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority""""" This is *James Wesley Rawles blog He seems to be considered a recognized authority on survival and survivalism by the editors of this Wikipedia page * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivalism Survivalism page] since his name is at top it. www.survivalblog.com not restricted per *[9]Wikipedia:External links guideline for removing links]. User did not follow [10]Wikipedia:External links guideline for removing links].

The there are plenty of fights about this link including this one and it has made it to most ref pages on WP by many more users then what you are talking about. I don't don't care about gettin my way or not since I could add any link to one of over 70,000 webpages that are maintained by me and it would get 100 times more the attention than it would get off the survivalism page. Both the links already have way more links outsite of WP than they need and the traffic will not make them or break them. The only edits I make on WP are to pages that small groups of people are trying to control the subject matter.

Here is another debate about the same link you are trying to remove *[11]Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Retreat_%28survivalism%29].

billylenks (talk) 11:39 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, survivalblog is written by a recognized authority. However, it does not need to be put in the external links. It is already used as a reference in the article--we don't need to link to it again in the EL. Brevity is a virtue in WP articles. Repetition is pointless. Even though this blog meets the criterion for inclusion, it is a matter of scandal: setting a bad example. If we allow a blog on the EL section (esp when its not needed, as I've explained above) it will encourage users to add more blogs, which do not meet the criterion. This point has been made by Trasel as well.

Furthermore, it is an issue of the two links. The second link is indefensible. By your own admission it sells something. This makes it spam. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight you are sayin if a site sells one thing it is spam per your own words. Then your I am wondering why you singled out one site for removal* A site related to survival and Survivalism

Sites in the References links that sell one of more items on the Survivalism Page.

4. http://www.aussurvivalist.com/ sells advertising on their site

6. http://www.biorationalinstitute.com/ sells advertising on their site

7. http://www.survivalblog.com sells items

8. http://www.survivalblog.com sells items

9. http://www.survivalbill.ca sell advertising

11. http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=survivalist&submit=Search sell advertising and no real reason way Ref should list search of yahoo groups for a keyword

19. http://www.equipped.org/ sells tons and tons of stuff would be the bigest spam on the page (LITTLED WITH PRODUCTS FOR SALE EVERY WHERE). WOULD ALSO LEAD TO NPOV ISSUES WITH YOUR EDITS SINCE YOU DID NOT REMOVE THIS REF LINK.

22. http://www.survivalbill.ca/ has the same ref and link as 9. which what you are citing http://www.survivalblog.com that it should not have a link extrenal links since it has a ref already. Why would you say this about the link I added and remove my edits when there are the same problems on ref section that you choose to plainly do nothin about when they are in plain sight for everyone to see. """"YOU Do UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS MASSIVE NPOV ISSUES WRITTEN ALL OVER IT FOR YOU AND ANY ONE THAT HAS EDIT MY EXTRANAL LINKS AND NOT OVER CHOOSING TO FIX THESE ISSUS"

25. http://hislink2.proboards53.com/index.cgi sell advertising through google adsense

29. http://technohippie.com/archives/beasurvivor.html sell advertising through google adsense

31. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056331/ despite the site having a review of the movie it is spam because it sells way too many items. per your own words one is too many.

32. http://www.badmovieplanet.com/unknownmovies/reviews/rev268.html sell advertising through banner for movies

34. http://www.oism.org/nwss/index.htm Sells books

36. http://www.biorationalinstitute.com/zcontent/alpha_strategy.pdf THIS LINK IS DEAD AND DOES NOT WORK AND WILL FREEZE YOUR COMPUTER MESSAGE THAT COMES UP "THIS FILE IS DAMAGED AND COULD NOT BE REPAIRED" WOULD ALSO LEAD TO NPOV ISSUES WITH YOUR EDITS SINCE YOU DID NOT REMOVE THIS REF LINK that is harmful to WP users over links that work!!!!!

I am very well aware what can and can't be added and I will make that very clear for the other users who read this. Despite some of these sites selling products or advertising in some form or another they belong on the page because they offer info that makes this page worth reading and provides Ref to the items placed here. This is just to make a point to Carl.bunderson (talk) and that he gets the point that removing my two edits is not very NPOV from what he is saying about my edits or what this user is doing to remove my edits. The real issues with this page have been overlooked going after personal issues that are not NPOV and it does not take much to look over the issues I presented and see that.

Carl you did open this door and and removing my edits further over and over without correcting the same issues with the rest of the Survivalism page will raise some major NPOV issuse. billylenks (talk) 6:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A site can be a reference even if it sells things, as long as it is reliable. I am not "singling out" your edits...they were the only edits to the EL section. You brought them up in the talk page, I responded, and another editor agreed with me. Another editor had already removed them outright. It looks as though I am singling out your site, but I'm not. I simply have not taken the time to go through the referenes. If one of my edits were to have "cleanup" as the summary, and I left a bunch of spam in the EL but removed one, then yes, that would be an NPOV issue. You're grasping for a reason to keep your spam on the page...give it up. Look at my edit history and talk page archives...it will be obvious to you that I am a tireless defender against spam around here, and you're hardly someone to whom I will give in. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't just keep reverting indefinitely, these links appears to violate our external links guidelines, but still, that's not a sustainable approach — we've got noticeboards & so forth exactly to prevent you from needing to revert so much. El_C 07:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not always had quickest, cleanest experiences with the noticeboards and admins, even in cases of clear violation of guidelines, but you're point is taken and I will try to utilize them more. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

help on Barnabas

That was fun. Thanks for asking me to help. Would you be able to do the wikilinks? Leadwind (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks much better, ty very much. Yeah, I'll take care of them. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Rodwa4 is User:NisarKand

This is probably the 150th sockpuppet of NisarKand. See his contributions, same POVs and same pattern of edits. He always does this, make sockpuppets and then starts using them when they have full access. WikiSockpuppetFinder (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who "WikiSockpuppetFinder" is, but he's mistaken. Not sure if there is anything I can do to prove that I am not someone else who was banned, but if you have any advice I'd appreciate it. The reason most of my contributions are regarding Afghanistan is that I have spent a lot of time studying Dari and Afghan culture for my job, so I have a fairly large amount of knowledge on those subjects. If you check my edit history, you will see that I have 2 edits from more than a year ago, then nothing until this month, that is because I created my Wikipedia account back then, but didn't really "get into" editing at that time. Recently I have used Wikipedia to search some info on Dari and Afghanistan, and noticing some mistakes I chose to use my account once again to make what I saw as needed corrections, and this time around I found editing to be rather enjoyable, hence the much larger number of edits in the last couple weeks. Like I said before, if there is anything else I can do to assure you I am not some banned user, please let me know. Thanks, Rodwa4 Rodwa4 (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

::Of coarse you agree with him BLUNDERson, you have agreed with EVERYONE of NisarKand's sockpuppets! By tomorrow he will be banned and you will be exposed once again as a NisarKand supporter. You must be his boyfriend, I can't think why else you would be so supportive of him. Keep it Blunderson boy, you are a joke (both on Wikipedia, and more importantly in real life where I'm sure you have no life). You should change your name to Blunderson, because it was a Blunder that a looser like you was born and also because you make too many Blunders here on Wikipedia.

Is the above comment aimed at me? Rodwa4 (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why bother playing dumb NisarKand? Haven't you learned yet from when your sockpuppet user:McTools was banned? By tomorrow or at the most in a few days you will be banned so stop wasting your time.

Would you like to explain exactly how I have "agreed" with this "NisarKand" character? Rodwa4 (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rod, I don't think you are a sock of Nisarkand, and this user is definitely a sock of Beh-nam. So I assume his accusation against you is spurious. However, I think it would go a great distance in demonstrating good-faith if you requested a check-user from an admin to prove your innocence. Also, if you re-posted the sock allegation on your talk page, that would be miles and miles of good-faith. What's happened is that you've gotten stuck in the middle of a mirey issue...Afghanistan-related pages have long been the victims of POV-pushing socks. That's why we can't actually do anything on Afghanistan at the moment. You have been very reasonable and civil though, even if I did take a touch of offence at your reply to me about the misleading sources. My instinct is that you will be welcome on WP and that you have much to offer. And the anon's comment about 'Of coarse [sic] you agree...' was aimed at me, not you. But yeah, even though I think the allegation is spurious, Rod, it would be very nice of you to request checkuser so we get this straightened out ASAP and can all move on to constructrive editing. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I request a checkuser? Rodwa4 (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Kingturtle said he is going to do a checkuser, so that should already be taken care of. Rodwa4 (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was done last night, I left you a note on your talk page about it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am still not convinced, checkuser does make mistakes. I've been right about NisarKand socks (who Carl.blunderson loves) 100% of the time so far. Another checkuser is necessary to confirm, also it is possible that he is using a proxy so not only the IP needs to be looked at but also the evidence provided.

And yes, Blunderson, I was talking to you. Looking at the Afghanistan talk page you have been collaborating with everyone of NisarKand's now blocked socks. Either you are both Afghan nationalists with Afghan nationalist POVs or you are online boyfriends. Which is it Blunderson?

PS looser, don't criticize my spelling. I'm not a looser like you trying to have perfect spelling when talking to morons like you. In all the articles I've written on Wikipedia though my spelling is perfect. You on the other hand have contributed nothing to Wikipedia except edit warring and many Blunders. I bet you are a real dumbass in real life and you just use spell check when writing online. After all, you have a degree in the easiest major on any campus: theology? Your degree is a joke and useless and you are a joke and useless to Wikipedia.

PPS: by the way stop trying to become an admin asshole, you have a block log and you will never become an admin with that type of record. Or you can keep wasting your time since you have nothing better to do than to be here 24/7. You must smell like a sock by now since I'm sure you haven't showered for weeks since you're here 24/7 trying to become an admin which will never happen.

user:rodwa4

You mentioned that an admin did a checkuser on rodwa4, and the results were negative. Could you please point me to where the request was made and the results were published? Thanks! Kingturtle (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here, on Alison's talk page. It's a bit informal though and I may have misunderstood her, but she at least in one way or another confirmed ("Unrelated") he is not Nisarkand. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Comments

They are generally reverted as a courtesy, but if you would like to keep them I don't think that WP:NPA is against it, the focus of that policy is directed towards the person making the attack, not the one receiving it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, seeing that this is one of those annoying puppeters that doesn't care if he is blocked a hundred times, perhaps you can use semi-protection to ignore him and just continue working? - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to do. I'm concerned that if I have my talk page semi-protected, legitimate users may not be able to use it. And this sock, Beh-nam, constantly got around the semi-protection on Afghanistan and other pages, so I'm not sure it would do a lot of good here; or would it? Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

EasyAutoSales

Where the F is my post about my company? If external links are not preferred, then remove the links. Don't remove the entire page and completely delete the hard work I put into the page. By your standards, it seems like Craigslist and Oodle be SPAM pages as well; and it's simply not the case.

EasyAutoSales (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Read your talk page. I did not delete the page, another user did. It was determined that it was spam and self promotion. Craigslist and Oodle are notable enough to warrant WP pages. Please read our notability and self-promotion guidelines. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Online car shopping

An article that you have been involved in editing, Online car shopping, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online car shopping. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Orlady (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Software as a service

Hi, I added because I think this blog adds ideas and new content. There are more blogs incluided in this article and I thouhgt it would be a good idea to add spanish blog. So you feel free you do what you think it is the best for wiki. Thanks --Evagarfer (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Eva. The problem is the EL policy discourages both blogs and foreign-language links in the EL section. The other blogs on the page will be removed shortly. Thank you for wanting to improve WP, and we look forward to your contributions to the content of pages. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan/ Middle East issue was discussed long time ago by many users

They provided many other sources that over time vandals removed.

See past discussions on this issue and it was agreed that Afghanistan is also a regional block in the Middle East.

The only user who disagreed was Afghan/Pashtun nationalist and racist User:NisarKand, and Rodwa4 somehow happens to be arguing the exact two samethings as NisarKand always was. See for yourself: LINK

Here's another instance where this was discussed. It was discussed many many times and the only user who disagreed was NisarKand.

Looking at the talk page archives and the links above, it is obvious that Rodwa4 is NisarKand. Checkuser did not detect him because he is probably using a proxy.

Behnam, I'll look at the talk archive. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Carl. Also, please note that removing Middle East from lead would be breaking years of consensus. I think you agree that breaking consensus is not good, especially when it is just due to one user (Rodwa4) who is likely to be a sockpuppet (of NisarKand). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodneySmithJr (talk • contribs) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Also we had a long discussion on a poll on this started by an admin (LINK). As you can see it was agree that Afghanistan is a regional block in all three regions.

Many sources were provided, for example Encylopedia Britannica says Afghanistan is a regional block in the Middle Eastn and Library of Congress places Afghanistan in the Middle East (LINK).

The only source I would say is a good RS that explicitly says Afghanistan is in the Middle East, is the U Michigan source. Half the other ones talk about the Near East, or don't explicitly say what it is said they do...they merely imply it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But Britannica also explicitly says regional block in Midde East. Plus, there was a wide consensus that these sources that list Afghanistan as Middle East such as Library of Congress are good RS. I think you would agree that it is better to discuss again and get a 2nd consensus before removing Middle East.

Well I did, just now, strike through the edit request and initiate discussion on it. We'll see what happens. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for checking the archives. Even though it's already been discussed a lot, it never hurts to discuss more since our goal here on Wikipedia is to always improve articles.

Uzbekistan's demonym

Hi Carl. I'm curious, what are your thoughts on Uzbekistan's demonym? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodneySmithJr (talk • contribs) 07:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Uzbek is the only one I've ever seen. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Julian the Apostate

Whoops! Thanks for the note. I have gone & altered my errors! DigitalC (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It was only a matter of time

Guess who. Talk to you soon! -M Kairaiseiken (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008

This Newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bennet

Hi Carl,

Shakespeare refers to Benedict of Nursia as "Saint Bennet" in Act 5, Scene 1 of Twelfth Night. I hope this helps!

Neelix (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It does, thank you. Are we sure that he is referring to St Benedict, though? My Cambridge School edition says it is referring to a church in London, the Signet Classic says "St. Benedict (a church)". I feel like its a bit shaky, I wish I had a better edition to which I could refer, as a reference for Benedict being called Bennet. I guess it feels to me, based on what I have at my disposal, that it is novel synthesis. A cursorsy Google of "st bennet london" and then "st bennet london shakespeare" on Google Scholar didn't turn up any parishes or other references. And with nothing else to go on, it seems like the church could have been named for any number of Benedicts, without our being sure. WP shows six other St Benedicts, one of whom was an English Benedictine, as well as there being 15 dead Pope Benedicts. Is there anything firmer tying Benedict of Nursia to St Bennet's in London? Sorry to be such a stickler :P Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bible

It seems the wording of the introduction is being protected, so let's discuss...I already created a section in the discuss page of the Bible. Please feel free to make suggestions there. THe wording I'm trying to fix is POV or unsupported. So please help me come up with wording you feel is acceptable. --Fcsuper (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it still unsatisfactory to you, after the last few edits? Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move

See Talk:Derby Friargate Line. This is more a suggestion than a request. I am suggesting a change of name for the Friargate Line article. Besides being the official name of the line, my suggestiion I believe is more descriptive for people outside of the Derby area. I am in the process of writing articles for all the stations along the line and have some input to the article itself. Chevin (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How to stop defacement of wikipedia

Hi Carl! It's been a couple of months since we chatted. Thanks for your advice, I've been able to add more to wikipedia in unique content since our chats.

I need to ask your advice. Just noticed that a Berlin IP (no real account) has removed ALL my references - leaving behind my contributions. I don't know anyone in Berlin, so I'm assuming this is someone defacing wikipedia. They've had zero other activity on wikipedia aside from this one act on one day. I've reversed their edits - but am loathe to make further contributions if I'm going to have to through this regularly. Please share your sage advice on what can be done. Thanks! Calum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.213.130 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Calum. Having to revert people is something of a necessary evil, unfortunately. The more you edit, making contributions of content, the less often your contributions are going to be reverted. And it's good to try and edit while you're signed in, so it's easier for others to see your work as a coherent whole. Hope this helps :) Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed link and spam

Hi Carl! I am new to Wikipedia and trying to learn. Seems like I became a spammer. I was and stil is trying to put a website together (www.businessethicsresources.com). My goal was giving some very basic info about business ethics, provide a reliable business ethics link library, and post info about recent books on business ethics and related issues. I put the website's address as an external link at Wikipedia. It was removed and I started reading about the policies of Wikipedia and realized that it was not appropriate to put the link at the first place. I can understand that and will not put the link there. But now the website listed as a spam source. I'm not a spammer, but of course at this point just to tell this will not mean anything. Would you please take a look at the web site one more time and help me to remove it from the spam list? Thanks! Yfzulfikar (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Fahir

I'll do what I can. Can you provide me with a link to the spam list on which it has been placed so I can better see the context? Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

When I do a search on Google with "businessethicsresources", following link is one of the results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jul_1 And 23rd item on that list is my website. When you click on it, it gives little more info, which I really don't understand. Thanks again for your help! Fahir Yfzulfikar (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about that. It's just a talk page for a wikiproject, and someone identified it as spam. Your site hasn't actually been blacklisted. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam on Virtual assistant (refactored for clarity)

Calling my edits vandalism is an extreme stretch. I advise you to kindly cease your harassment immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.20.174 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You replaced good links with your own spam, after it has been removed as such repeatedly. I am informing you of WP policy, not harassing you, and your estimation of how I am treating you is nearly value-less, as you are just an anon spammer. And learn how to use a talk page, and sign your comments with 4 tildes. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8