User talk:Camelbinky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

gun control kosher[edit]

Complete aside. Hunting isn't kosher? Isn't the old testament full of stories of jews hunting? Did the rules change?Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It is unkosher to eat any animal, regardless of whether the animal itself would otherwise be kosher. Kosher rules demand that an animal be slaughtered in a certain way, and hunting does not allow that. Everyone in the Bible prior to Abraham was not Jewish, since he is the first Jew, the stories in the Bible that mention "so-and-so" was a hunter, such as Cain, are about non-Jews. Also, all Jewish law, including Kosher, did not come about until Moses, and if you believe some religious scholars perhaps not until much later during the period of the split kingdos of Israel and Judah.Camelbinky (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Highest point in Albany[edit]

The only official source for any elevation in the U.S. is the U.S. Geological Survey's maps. For Albany, I found that elevation here, which can be verified from the geolinks you get to if you click the coordinates. If you're looking for a source saying that's the highest point, it's not really necessary. You just look at the map and find it—I think that's permissible since it's not a question of interpretation. Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Policy discussion at Seraphimblade's[edit]

Thank you for your comments there. I responded[1]. I think block evasion actually could possibly constitute a violation of WP:SOCK which has been tortured into saying "any impermissible use" or something like that, but policy cannot redefine the Eenglish language. Colton Cosmic 11:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"R is for retarded and A is for asshole"[edit]

That made me laugh. While I must disagree with you about the situation and the likely outcome, anyone who has the balls to talk like that is AOK in my book! Joefromrandb (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:Birthplace of Gautama Buddha[edit]

Did you put that move request there intentionally? So far, no one seems to understand what it is trying to say. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Great minds think alike[edit]

Had an edit conflict at AN. I thought I was the first to oppose the community ban on wikiexperts[2], but you beat me to it. Well said. I totally agree. --B2C 21:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin[edit]

Hi. Since you were involved in the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

COI editing[edit]

1. Declare your COI on the talk page. 2. Mind NPOV closely. 3. Ask a couple Wikipedian content writers with no COI to review your work. If anyone flips you any shit unfairly, please get in touch with me, I'll raise hell. Carrite (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your msg to User:Corpse-ManoftheObamaclypse[edit]

I don't really like the user name User:Corpse-ManoftheObamaclypse, it surely shows a political view that I disagree with (or seems to anyway). But I don't see it as violating any part of our Username policy. Which part do you think it violates? DES (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

DES I believe this excerpt from the Username Policy covers his/her name, but that is just my interpretation-
The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are disruptive or offensive:
  • Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible, for example by containing profanities.
  • Usernames that contain or imply personal attacks.
  • Usernames that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction ("trolling").
What is your opinion?Camelbinky (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Camelbinky, you indicated above that you believe my username to be disruptive and offensive. If that is the case, where is the disruption? Where is the offense? I have been editing under this username since July. If there were truly a disruption or an offense, I think we would have seen it by now. I prefer to keep my username as it is. I see no reason to change it. Corpse-ManoftheObamaclypse (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm with Camelbinky on this one. "Obamaclypse" suggests something along the lines of "the end of the world", which begs the question whether, maybe, a black US president is somehow signified in the Book of Revelations or something. I find it very difficult to take seriously the edits of someone with a user name like that. So yes, I find it disruptive, and I'm on the verge of blocking. Does [[the user not see how others would find it disruptive? Drmies (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Drmies, it seems that you have chosen to take offense at my username. I do not find my username offensive. In fact, I find it rather amusing. If you (or Camelbinky) had come to me individually and told me what it was that you found so hurtful about my username, I may have reconsidered it. Instead, Camelbinky wrote on my userpage--with no reason or explanation--that my username was offensive, and you commented on Camelbinky's page in a way that insinuated racist intent on my part. We have some options here. If you want, you can continue to take offense at my username, I can choose to take offense at your veiled accusation of racism, and then we can waste time trading snarky remarks on each other's Wikipedia pages (or other people's) about how offended we are at one another. If you want, you are also free to attempt to censor my username. Then we can waste our time--and, probably, other people's--arguing about that. (You can expect me to ask questions like, "If someone chose the username 'Voodoo Economics,' would the other Wikipedians try to censor it?") I tend to think that life is too short for this stuff, and that 2013 American society--to the extent that we still have anything left that can be described as a society--spends far too much time talking about who is supposed to be offended by what. I would prefer to spend my time actually improving the encyclopedia. In closing, I would respectfully refer you to the very sensible comments made by DES above. Cheers! Corpse-ManoftheObamaclypse (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Corpse clearly has a battleground mentality of Wikipedia that shows his/her name is only the tip of the iceberg of a bigger problem that may lead to further disruption over any type of disagreement on Wikipedia. He/she does not understand how discussion and conflict resolution occurs in Wikipedia and has chosen instead to see discussions and differing opinions as either "ignore me and let me do what I want" or "we'll waste time and insult each other". This is not how Wikipedia works and such an opinion of Wikipedia is worse than his/her name.Camelbinky (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see it. Corpse-ManoftheObamaclypse's expresses, or seems to express, a political view, specifically a very negative view of the current President of the United States. I know many pwole who view this president negatively due to his policies and not his race. I see nothing in the name to imply a racist view, and I choose to assume good faith. I will say that I think a less politically charged and less potentially controversial username would be better -- CMO, think how the name will look/sound in 5 years, when for good or ill someone else is President -- but i have seen other politically charged names on Wikipedia before and the skies didn't fall nor the servers crash. As to a battle ground mentality, it was sugested in this discussion that CMO had racist motivs for his name, and he objected, said there could be a long fight, but that he "would prefer to spend my time actually improving the encyclopedia". He hasn't as far as I can tell (after a brief look at his recent edits) been editing disruptively or POV-pushing. In fact his editing seems to be helpful to the project. I think you would do well to drop the matter. But if you really feel that this user name is too disruptive to work with, then you should start an open RFC and see what the community position is. CMO, You might want to consider a change to a less overtly political name, but I don't think our current policy in any way requires you to do so. DES (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Can anyone point out to the Corpse Man that I didn't "insinuate racist intent"? That I didn't say anything about "hurtful", just "disruptive"? That there is no question of "censorship"? Corpse, you don't seem to understand a basic point: of course you don't find your own user name disruptive, but that doesn't mean others can't. We teach that kind of stuff in elementary school: "disruption" doesn't pertain to your opinion, but to that of those you have to work with in a collaborative project. There's two editors here that have a problem with it, and you accuse them of things they didn't say. Now, DESiegel doesn't agree with me and Camelbinky, and that's fine. If I had thought that your user name was a clear violation, I would have blocked you already. Instead I asked you to consider changing your name, which you respond to with all kinds of irrelevant rhetoric ("it seems that you have chosen to take offense at my username"? well, you chose the name and I took offense to it, yes) and a claim of "don't call me a racist and censor me". In other words, "help I'm being oppressed". Well, you're not. You picked a name which evidently some people find offensive and you don't care. That's fine. Just don't expect this administrator to help you out if you need help. Camelbinky, I'll leave this be, and you're welcome to remove this reply, or indeed the entire thread. Thank you for sticking your neck out. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome Drmies, it doesn't always work but I'm always willing to stick my neck out to make sure things that I think need to get attention, get attention. I'll leave this thread up and originally I had gone to Jimbo's page with the question of what to do about a name like this, I think others may come here or take other action, or speak up in CMO's defense as well. I do see the battleground mentality in CMO's use of rhetoric and saying the options are for us to drop it or to go back and forth in snarky comments. I don't see, especially the second, being legitimate options and if CMO truly thinks snarky comments back and forth is a proper option- then someone needs to keep an eye on him/her for the future.Camelbinky (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Good catch[edit]

My, that was poorly phrased, having such a wide scope. Good catch! // FrankB 22:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom City, Missouri[edit]

Hi, Camelbinky. Love that name! You are probably not aware of it, but I had taken that photo off that page about a year ago and attempted to start a discussion. No-one responded. If you would like to see that photo on that page, please come talk about it. Thanks! John from Idegon (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks for your fixes to Lark Street. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Very appreciated.Camelbinky (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Warinus de la Strode[edit]

Kindly proceed to Talk:Warinus de la Strode to provide an explanation for what you just did. — Scott talk 19:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Camelbinky: I reverted your reversions, since you did not provide any edit summaries for your reversions of legitimate deletions of questionable material. Please explain your edits on the talk page of the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm LFaraone. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Jimbo Wales that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. LFaraone 22:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

We all know Belguim doesn't exist anyways-[edit]

Ciao Camelbinky,

I copied this from your contribution on Wales's TP. Indeed with your typo you're right, but worse is you believe an irrelevant blog, They confused people who live there with the country as explained in the essay Sire, er zijn geen Belgen, just like Americans are New Yorkers, Texans etc. Belgians are Vlaming, Walon, German-speaking or multi-lingual. The country is a federal kingdom existing since 1830. Read more in Wikipedia in your language :-)

Kind regards from an ex-nederbelg,  Klaas|Z4␟V:  08:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a language barrier. My initial comment was a joke. I know quite a bit about Belguim and it's history, thank you.Camelbinky (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The language troubles are political and artificial. Ask the way to go in Brussels in French or Dutch you might get no answer depending on the listener's native tongue and her/his nationalism. Happened to me really. Solution: English, lingua franca del mondo Cheers,  Klaas|Z4␟V:  08:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Half Moon[edit]

En waarom niet? Hudson himself was English. Sca (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

AN/I discussion about you[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Could you block Camelbinky for determined personal attack please. Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sprouts of the Mohawk River: Revision history[edit]

Now tell me, just what in the article supports your contention that all this "in the middle" is truly in the middle? Provide a map or a link to that information that will help the reader understand and accept your statement. Otherwise you are on the long list of UKJR--unilateral knee jerk reverter. (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please log in using an account rather than an IP. Plus this is a discussion for the talk page of the article, not my user talk page. BRD, you were bold, I reverted, now every one discusses on the article talk page. That's how it works. Not discuss here and not an edit war. Leave the article alone until consensus determines your change may happen.Camelbinky (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If you treat people disrespectfully and as being stupid you have to expect your actions to have appropriate repercussions. If you expect someone to be aware of a discussion on the TP when reviewing an article then you have just, maybe unconsciously, become aware of a problem with WP--no link or notification while in the article that the article is in discussion on the TP. As you may be a more senior participant in WP, it may be through your influence that this issue needs to be addressed with proper means in the article. As expecting to review before action, let me direct you to my page: "IP user identification[edit]--PLEASE refrain from appearing prejudicial about my continued WP participant with an IP. Yes, I know about user names and do not have one. That is explanation far more than what the question is worth. Nothing against those that do have a user name. AGAIN -- PLEASE, refrain from appearing prejudicial especially by those that seem to take great pleasure toward those with which they disagree about WP content and attack the IP user for being identified as such. (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)". I do log in, under my IP address and according to the fundamental WP philosophy that should be totally adequate, and this continued insistence that I and other IP username participants is a continued confirmation that those using such identification on WP are frowned upon--that does not appear to be very consistent with a "community-based" effort. I do not know if you understand the action you have taken by addressing the IP issue but that is in the long run what you have achieved--and since you very well be a more senior participant in WP that action can be on behalf of WP subliminally understood as the standing policy regarding a recommendation but not absolute rule of a formal username being established. Wait......I know--that was not your intention. Guess what? That is what it conveys. And since this whole gig concerns what is expressed all the more calls for attention to be paid to just what one with authority says. Sometimes some people may not understand this point--the "promotion" of participants within WP is by invitation only. Someone is promoted by those that have previously been thought acceptable. Talk about incest. That very well perpetuate the worst that can happen within a hierarchy.

Let me attempt to explain what seems to be so prevalent with more advanced WP participants--a ready reference to warring and vandalism. Yes, I know you have yet to make any reference to vandalism but there just seems to be these reoccurring actions with senior WP participants that can only be attributed to knee jerk or subconscious thought and action. I do not expect for you to understand this but promotion of those that have previously been promoted by those previous leaves very little room for those that have a different point of view. If one does have a different point of view it seems that warring and vandalism seem to emerge very quickly. Again, I do not expect for you to understand this but there is much in the world that we may not understand and it is ones approach to it that can be all telling. Is this coming from someone that is paranoid? If you think so then you are on the wrong track. Now, I am willing to overlook any views I may have toward what one may choose as their username but I will not accept from someone, particularly a senior WP participant, that a username other than an IP address makes one more credible. That is a prejudice that the WP hierarchy needs to address. WP is not a robotic action and if you are unwilling to take the time to review what information is available to you about a participant then you have to expect unfavorable reaction to what is the response and the implication. So I hope that this has addressed the issue of using an IP username and the previously mentioned inadequacy of WP notification that an article is under discussion. There really needs to be addressed the issue of more senior WP participants viewing that to which they disagree as being malicious. (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)