User talk:Carl.bunderson

On the name of arrow's theorem

I was just wandering why you removed my discussion section in the Talk of Arrow's impossibility theorem. On the name "Impossibility Theorem": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem&oldid=489091807#On_the_name_.22impossibility_theorem.22

Could you please notify me on my talk page if you reply. Thanks. Drozdyuk (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Performance management

Hey Carl. I'm not sure why you deleted my updates to the performance management definition. I run a research firm on this topic and this is my profession - and you are a religious scholar. Why would you just "delete" things posted by subject matter experts? I'm not sure I get it. Thanks. jbersin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbersin (talk • contribs) 17:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WP does not allow self promotion, OR, or linking to blogs. The post I put on your talk page should explain why I've reverted some of your edits. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - July 2009

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter Issue X - July 2009 Project news The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 76 FAs, 8 FLs, and 148 GAs. We gained new recognized content in each field, with 4 FAs promoted, 2 FLs, and 3 GAs. Congratulations and a big thank you to all those who worked on these articles! Member news It was a big month for new members, with User:RandomNumberSee, User:Per Ardua, User:Muzhogg, User:Arlen22, User:Scotchorama, and User:Jaybird vt joining, bringing us up to 292 listed members. Thanks to you all, and a special welcome to our new members! Other news I am still working on the categorization matter. With any luck, we should have some results by the end of the month. There are also some discussions regarding project related activities at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. One issue in particular that might be addressed is possible elections of new coordinators. Anyone interested in serving in such a capacity is more than welcome to indicate as much. Related projects news The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute. Member contest of the month The previous contests are still ongoing, because of the extreme amount of time the categorization is taking me. Anyone who can bring any of the few Stub class articles among the project's 1000 most often accessed articles by the end of July will get an award. Please see the details Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Project challenge of the month. Christianity related news Pennsylvania Amish farmer jailed for outhouse violations Obama expands Bush's faith-based initiatives Relics of 39 saints found by British Museum From the Members Welcome to the Tenth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. It has been a long time since the last coordinators election. There is a lot for people to do, and I certainly would welcome seeing any individuals with an interest in such a position put themselves forward as candidates. I in particular would very much like to see some degree of "specialization" in the coordinators, so that, for instance, we might have someone knowledgable about some of the specific Christian faith traditions or other main subjects, like Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, art, theology, and so on. If any parties who have experience with some of our faith- or- subject-based content would be interested in being candidates, I would love to see them do so. Please feel free to take part in the discussion regading what the minimum number of category items is, and how to deal with the non-qualifying categories, on the General Forum page. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC) To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by ~~~~

John Carter (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Hi there. You reverted one of my edits on Afghanistan. I just wanted to make clear I did not change the denonyms. What I changed was the reference. The reference note is set out in a very convoluted way with two references within it. It would be easier to include it as a straightforward reference. The actual citations were slightly incorrect in that they purport to quote a dictionary when they are actually quoting a website which quotes a dictionary. Green Giant (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing is that how the demonyms are handled was a very contentious issue a couple/few years ago. The status quo has been stable for some time, and that is the only reason I reverted you. If you still want it your, admittedly simpler/more straightforward, way, please revert me. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have changed back, but it's not really a reversion. Green Giant (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted Green Giant's edit and explained it on his talk page. Cheers. Tajik (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic structure of Republic of Chile

The white people in Chile are 52% sources: http://convergencia.uaemex.mx/rev38/38pdf/LIZCANO.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAntarticwik (talk • contribs) 03:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You do need to make it clear when you edit articles that you are replacing out-dated content with up-to-date sourced content. It is difficult to see the value of an edit that changes sourced content without explicitly explaining the situation. Thank you for the note, though. Cheers, carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Open source hardware‎

Unlikely to be "self" promotion. Marty (Diehl Martin) died a couple of years back.

Sadly this does mean that those FreeIO redlinks were likely to stay that way forever, so it's a good wikiprune, but it is rather a shame that the FreeIO project seems to have ground to a halt since. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just assume, when someone adds nothing but information relating to a single company. If any of the links were actually going to become blue I wouldn't mind keeping them. But a new editor adding nothing but links and a "reference" about that single company... I doubt it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009 (http://spam.yahowto.com)

Sorry posting my ip:User_talk:99.228.199.20 address a spam ... I will not edit an article .. Thank you

Please see my response on your talk page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

so how can i remove my ip of the site ... User_talk:99.228.199.20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.199.20 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't. This is as far as this can go. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Alcohol in the Bible

Hello, I see that you are taking on the clean up of this article in response to my GA Reassessment. I'm going to extend the hold as I see that great progress is being made. Please notify me when you are done so that I can finalize the review. Thank you for your work on this important subject and overall for your work on Christian-related articles. It is much-needed. H1nkles (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, H1nkles. Honestly, I doubt it's going to make it to GA status. Pretty much all I've done is cut down on material; it probably needs things added. Sorry for the hold-up, I've just been really busy this week. I'll try and finish it in the next few days. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am now done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions)

Renaming SBC resurge/takeover article

The article currently titled "Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover" will soon change its name. An early straw poll narrowed the choices to six alternatives, listed at: Talk:Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover#Straw poll 2 (once this thread is archived, see here.)

If you wish to rank the names suggested there, please do so soon. Please put other comments BELOW rather than interpersed among suggested names. Thanks. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Good job

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thou hast contributed much for knowledge. Keepith the good work up. - - BennyK95 - Talk October 8 2009 (UTC)

Happy all Saints and all Souls day!

Hello I just wanted to wish you an early Happy all Saints and all Souls day! May you have a blessed feast and God bless! - BennyK95 - Talk 17:02, October 25 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Benny, you too. I'll offer vespers tonight that you attain to sainthood. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Ret.Prof (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Sarcophagus of Julian

Why did you delete it?

The Sarcophagus of the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate(Istanbul Archaeological Museum):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Istanbul_-_Museo_archeologico_-_Sarcofagi_imperiali_bizantini_-_Foto_G._Dall%27Orto_28-5-2006.jpg (on the left)

& http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Istanbul_-_Museo_archeologico_-_Sarcofagi_imperiali_bizantini_-_Foto_G._Dall%27Orto_28-5-2006_2.jpg (in the middle)

Turkish source: "Topkapı Sarayı ve Çevresinin Bizans Devri Arkeolojisi" (by Hülya Tezcan)

The Sarcophagus of Julian the Apostate: first in the Church of the Holy Apostles > Topkapı Palace (until 1847) > Hagia Eirene /Aya İrini Church (until 1916) > Istanbul Archaeological Museum now! (& there is no cross on it! because he was not a christian!)

But he was buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles in a porphyry sarcophagus. from: http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/vasilief/julian-apostate.asp?pg=10

It is generally accepted that the Emperor Julian was reburied in the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople at some unknown date after his initial burial outside Tarsus in Cilicia in 363. Böri (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of the post is unclear. Talk pages should be used only to discuss improving the article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page question

Hola Señor, vi un mensaje suyo en mi buzon. Me podria por favor explicar a que se refiere? Gracias. Hello Sr, I received a message from you on my mailbox and I really don't understand what are you trying to say, or rather, why do you say that. First, who are you? Why did you write to me? What comment appear not to be constructive to you? I work at Columbia University, and I usually don't vandalize pages, rather, I try to contribute. Please let me know what I did wrong. Thank you. (I have no idea how to sign my posts, but I do what I can to contribute, however.) Gracias. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.93.16 (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

My comment was in reference to edits made on Mango and Manila galleon which were unsourced and did not improve the pages. The edits were made 25 March 2009; so over a year ago. Because the edits were so long ago, and you're on an IP address, they were probably made by another person than yourself. To avoid instances like this in the future, I would suggest getting an account here. I'll put a welcome message on your page that will tell you how to go about doing that. Tien un buen dia. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Number of the Beast

You sir are being disruptive to Wikipedia. You remove my post saying I violated the the Verifiability policy, which I have not.

"All self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources"

"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas."

"The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."

I provided a video of the original interpretation from Walid Shoebat, an independent professionally done peer-review video of showing a detailed comparison (which there was no way you watched, its about 20 minutes), and a third website showing peer-review made examples.

I did not mean to remove your first edit, I was still editing article and meant to preview and not save, I then save when I was done. You then immediately removed my updated material without even looking at the changes nor the updated references. You claim I violated the wiki policy? I have read the policies. The article is about an idea, someone's interpretation, not something based in science or history. Peer-reviews I provided back up that interpretation and do meet the wiki policy.

Did you see why the article was removed the first time? "I don't see Walid Shoebat as a reliable source for this subject - additionally the YouTube video is copyvio and the website is just a personal website with more copyvio & stuff about the pillars of fire & atom bombs"

How can he not be? The subject is his interpretation. How is the removal based on that not being subjective? The video and the websites do not contain any copyright violations, please see fair use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ploxhoi (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the comments other editors have have posted regarding your additions. You're standing alone against two experienced editors, one of whom is an admin. Which of us do you think better understands WP policy? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Carl, this is Donal Donaldson from number of the beast, I tried deleting my own research, realizing my error, but you reverse deleted it, I'm just letting you know that I tried to fix my error.98.169.206.78 (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)donal donaldson

Sorry for the mix up, have a nice day. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Genesis

Carl, I'm not sure why you deleted my posts to The Book of Genesis. The Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the oldest publisher of the Jewish Bible, has released a virtual edition of the Bible and I thought it would be appropriate to link back to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrstern25 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

One external link in the EL section would be fine; but multiple links to the same base website in the body of the article is the problem. We try to avoid ELs in the article body. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your latest revision is fine; using an EL as a reference is ideal. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

M.I.A.

How's your suggestion coming along? :) Lifebonzza (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the the reminder, I will be getting around to it shortly. Please do nag me if I don't send you a link in the next few days. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes in Torah: authorship: Traditional attribution

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Torah#Subjective_treatment_of_Authorship I hope that you find the qualifications I made acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariah62 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. You may not change text that is sourced. It has to be based on what the source says. You especially may not alter quoted text. What is the point of quoting a source if you change the quotation? If you want to have more discussion supporting Mosaic authorship, by all means add text to the article based on reliable sources. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia vandalism

Please stop vandalism on Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrancerCZ (talk • contribs) 17:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on the page had no indication that you were suggesting an edit. You need to make your talk page comments unmistakeably about the article itself and not the topic of the article, so that other users will not mistake your comments for using the talk page as a forum. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

Please if you could explain, why was this reverted as vandalism?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the text is clearly a quotation from the Encyclopedia Judaica. You can't alter quoted text. Am I the only person who understands that? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "However, Deuteronomy 31:9 ("And Moses wrote this (Torah) law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi...") contains an anachronism.", is directly quoted from the Torah? Where?--Jojhutton (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I said, it's a quotation from the Encyclopedia Judaica. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you take the time to read the paragraph? Everything from "The traditional doctrine" to "the narrative material" is a quote from: Sarna, Nahum M. et al. "Bible." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. p576-679. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not alter my warnings on a third user's talk page. I informed him above on his page that he was altering a quote, and that he may not. That was his friendly, non-automated warning. He persisted in the edit following my explanation, which exhausted my assumption of good faith. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as the altering goes, I did not alter your message, I only closed the section. Anyone who wishes to see it, still can. As far as the quotation goes, I have no way of verifying the quote, but I now see the "quotation marks" around the entire quote. Quotations that large should really be blocked and separate, so as to be not confusing to the reader, as this has apparently been. So I was wrong about the inline citation, but please try and be more kind to newbies, and do not remove talk page comments as you did here. --Jojhutton (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nice to the newbies...I put a welcome template on Zachariah's page when he was an anon, and gave him a number of edits before giving him a vandalism warning. And it is hardly my fault that the user on War in Afghanistan couldn't articulate his comment in a way that made it clear he was aiming to improve the article and not just talk bout the War in Afghanistan. Perhaps you should have spent more time reading the article and looking at the recent edit history before assuming I was in the wrong at Torah. I don't plan to accept any advice from you, given that you can't be bothered to thoroughly look at a quotation. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

'Jesus islamic view'

Regarding change on Title of article 'Jesus islamic view' ,there is lot discussion on talk page under section 'Islamic view of jesus' ,Added my point of view,may pl. see and comment.--Md iet (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

deleted link to a video

Dear Carl, Thanks for looking at the link I inserted on the Passage Meditation page. You suggested that I put forward reasons for including the link on the article's Talk page... but before I do that, I wonder if you might be able to give me some help? There is already a lively discussion on that page about this deleted link, and what is confusing me is that Wikipedia has so many rules that for every rule that says you CANNOT do something there is another rule that says that you CAN do it. Easwaran's first words on the video are "What you do through the practice of meditation is train your attention". Since he's talking about the method of meditation described in the article, it seemed to me a highly relevant link which would add understanding to a non-trivial topic. I appreciate that wikipedia articles can't be a collection of all the links there are for a topic, but surely one link which throws quite a bit of light on the topic is justified? Would you be able to give me some indication of what I might do to make this link an acceptable addition to wikipedia? Thanks, DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Carl, I have now added a suggestion to the Passage Meditation Talk Page DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the thread, Duncan. I've replied. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Selection

Hi, I saw Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#Christianity_articles_have_been_selected_for_the_Wikipedia_0.8_release and the articles seem randomly selected - at t best. It would be nice if you could give some ideas about the list. I am not sure if I managed to look at them all, but it really needs help. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you want an assessment of the list? I'll look it over as soon as I have a block of time to devote to it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you could do that it would be nice. To me it was really non-representative of Christianity, e.g. items such as Trinity, Crucifixion, etc. were falling behind biographies of specific people and the list of Archbishops of Canterbury! So your ideas will be appreciated, so my view will not be the only one out there. That CD will go to lots of people I think. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Gregorian calendar WDL link

Hello - a little background on our link - a permanent HDL URL [1] the actual item is of Spanish origin, so if you were to see the Spanish title (followed by the English title in our link), we list our items in the native language of creation - an academic research tradition.

If you were using a browser that was spanish based, then you would have been automatically routed to the spanish WDL item page. If you were using an English browser, then following the link will land you in the English page of an item that is spanish in language and origin, but is described and translated in English.

Please let me know if you have further questions. Efmcleanckm (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell an English translation is not provided at the URL. The document itself is only available in Spanish, with a four-sentence paragraph describing it in English. Four sentences that are already covered by the article don't warrant this link's inclusion in the ELs. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas (Col 1:16) History2007 (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Del

May i ask why you made this revert here ? For your info there were 37 citations from reliable sources. All verifiable. Someone65 (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It was already addressed in the talk page. 37 citations for one piece of information screams POV-pushing. Bahai is already included in the article as an Abrahamic religion, so there's no need to push the issue. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey i saw you archive a talk page earlier. Could you archive my entire talk page for me please? I'm not sure how to do it. I would appreciate that a lot. Thanks. Someone65 (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the definition of "Vandalism"?

Mr. Bunderson,

Although I realize that you yourself believe you are doing a admirable service in "bird dogging" the Wikipedia site and monitoring any suspicious or malicious behavior that might be associated with the policies and guidelines of this fine online encyclopedia, I simply do not. My reasoning being that you are taking it upon yourself to purposely "undo" my edits (which happen to be truthful and accurate) just because you've failed to properly investigate them for yourself. Is it laziness on your part, or are you just inundated with so much free time that you have nothing better to do? Wouldn't your recent undo-ing of my edits constitute some sort of vandalism in a way? After all, you're making an assumption on my credibility without being accountable for your own. A bit of a double standard - wouldn't you say?

My credits, birthdate, place of birth, who I've worked with, etc., etc., are ALL Correct and since this article was written ABOUT ME, then I can certainly verify the accuracy of the information. If you have a problem with ANYTHING written about me, then I suggest before you automatically dismiss, undo, or post any comments regarding me and my life, then you should do your homework first. Go to the "end crawl" of one of the films or TV Shows that I have done and verify for yourself that my name is indeed a part of the cast list. And before you stand in judgement on whether I deserve to be noted on Wikipedia, try and remember the good Christian saying..."Judge not, and ye shall not be judged".

The profession I've chosen is a hard and oftentimes tumultuous one at best, and unless you've been in the trenches so to speak, you have no clue what it takes to even get an audition, let alone be cast in a film or television show. If you think it's easy...you try it! Now leave me and my article alone.

Sincerely, Craig Vincent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.248.167 (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Although you may be the subject of the article (we do get hoaxers, so I can't say for certain), and as someone with relatives in the profession I understand what you are saying, you are not a reliable source for our articles. This may seem odd, but if you read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS I hope you will undersand this. You should also read WP:NPA and WP:AGF.

CARL - you and the IP must both stop editing at the article today. Please, as I suspect any other Administrator would block you both. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clemency. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd hate to see anyone get blocked over this, it shouldn't be necessary. If there are problems tonight or tomorrow I'm sure they can be sorted as others are now watching the article (I brought it up on ANI and of course as you know it's at AfD). So please don't put yourself in harm's way. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you for that

Thanks for that. I appreciate it Someone65 (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I can do it again in the future as needed, or the archive box on your talk page should link to instructions. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Bede 121.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bede 121.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for fixing it up - I actually make far too many typos than I care to, and often miss most of them! Happy New Year, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment on discussion page of Pvsalsedo concerning Tutankhamun Talk section

"Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pvsalsedo"

Thank you for the reminder. However, my contribution to the Tutankhamun talk page is not general discussion and is specifically related to improving the article. The article is deficient in terms of explaining the facts behind the DNA research conducted by Zahi Hawass and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The article misrepresents that research by failing to disclose the fact that the research cannot conclude that the KV55 mummy is that of Akhenaten (and, hence the father of Tutankhamun) without discounting Hawass' claim that Ankhesenamun is NOT the mother of the fetuses buried with Tutankhamun. The Wikipedia article speculates that the KV21A mummy is Ankhesenamun but fails to point out that doing so undermines the DNA research that concludes that KV55 is Akhenaten. That KV55 is the father of Tutankhamun is not in question. What is in question is the unequivocal conclusion by the JAMA article that the identity of KV55 as Akhenaten is indisputable, unproblematic and without other possibilities. If Wikipedia doesn't want to take into account the evidence for KV55 as Smenkhare (which is referenced thru the source document) then it should not speculate on the identity of the KV21A mummy being Ankhesenamun, either, without pointing out how that undermines the research which concludes KV55 as Akhenaten; and, therefore the father of Tutankhamun.

In addition, the article is deficient in terms of explaining what team is at work (i.e. JAMA or National Geographic) in concluding that KV55 is "99.99" percent certain of being Akhenaten. If National Geographic is quoting JAMA, they are wrong because that's not what JAMA claims and National Geographic did not perform any DNA tests apart from the Hawass study. If the Hawass research is the source, then it fails to point out that Hawass NEVER takes into account the effects of incest on the consanguinity of the DNA, which poses other alternatives to the identity of KV55 since it can also be demonstrated (thru the source document) how the KV35YL mummy is his aunt, Meritaten, and NOT Tut's sister.

More importantly, the Wikipedia article obscures the facts by speculating, on the one hand, that KV21A is Ankhesenamun and then concluding that KV35YL is "Tut's sister". Either KV21A or KV35YL is Ankhesenamun but not both! If KV35YL is an unidentified sister, then the article should state that this contradicts the historical and archeological evidence which indicates no other wife or consort to Tutankhamun other than Ankhesenamun. But all of this is only problematic in concluding that KV55 is Akhenaten and not Smenkhare. If it's the latter, all of these apparent contradictions fail to occur and my talk section explains how.

I would suggest you re-read the talk section I produced before pronouncing judgement on it but also check out the source document that I have referenced. This is a web page by Kate Phizackerly which more fully explains, in genetic detail, the Hawass research and demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt, the flaws and the viable alternatives of that research. I think after you examine that web-page, you may come to a better understanding and make a more productive contribution as to how to improve the article instead of suggesting, out of hand, that my talk section constitutes "general" discussion. That, I'm afraid, is not making any kind of a positive contribution, whatsoever. Pvsalsedo (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the way you wrote your comment gave no indication that you wanted to fix the article. It read like a long rant about why someone's view on Tutankhamun is wrong. Please just be mindful to make your talk page post's unmistakeably related to improving the article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 08:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

James Alger Fee

Hi, Can you please understand that it is not an unconstructive edit I'm just trying to help Wikipedia. Can we please Discuss this.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've explained on your talk page. Please do not edit Fee's page again until you have new information to add to it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Do me favor

Could u archive my page for me again please? Someone65 (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How much of it do you want archived? It's all fairly recent, and the page isn't too terribly big yet. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Mujahid Kamran

Hi Carl, Can you stop editing the wikipedia for Prof Dr Mujahid Kamran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahid_Kamran Whatever you revert it back to is wrong, misleading and untrue. Just leave it the way it is now and do not bother editing it any more. You are wasting yours and others time for no good reason. Thanks for understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.141.35.184 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How is it acceptable to replace sourced content with unsourced? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you not understand what was written above? If you care so much about references and you bother checking things on internet look here http://www.pu.edu.pk/faculty/descriptions.asp?faculty=1000001

If you tried again editing the page, we will start litigation against you, you understand. Read the above mentioned link carefully and read his CV. Get a life and get something better to do rather than putting false information about others on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manobe13 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been observing what has been put in my biography by your goodself. My CV is given at www.pu.edu.pk where I am currently employed as VC. I have already written in detail to the editors about the false information put in there. If you wish I can send you a copy of that email. Manobe13 has put up a biography which has no errors whereas the other two so called biographies are full of false and baseless stuff. If you have any questions and queries that might help clarify things for you do let me know. My email is kamran_m51@yahoo.com and my name is Mujahid Kamran.

Dr Kamran, I appreciate your desire for an accurate article about yourself on Wikipedia. That having been said, Manobe13 is not trying to achieve a laudable end by good means. Wikipedia is based on verifiability and being tied to reliable sources. Going from an lenghty article with 16 references, to a shorter article with 0 references, does not further the aims of Wikipedia. If there are specific things that are wrong in the article, Manobe13 should feel free to demonstrate, using reliable sources, why those things are not correct. Manobe13's characteristic as a single-purpose account does not speak well of his dedication to improving Wikipedia. His actions here suggest a certain point-of-view pushing on your behalf. Were he interested in improving Wikipedia, he would constructively engage on the article's talk page about particular details, and would be interested in more than just making you look good, Doctor Kamran. Please instruct him to desist from his current mode of action at the article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Mujahid Kamran: References in the wikipedia article have been added. Kindly do not edit any more. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.52.154.118 (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on the article's talk page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 13:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mujahid Kamran & identity

Hi,

As you're far more experienced with the policies and way of doing things on Wikipedia than myself, might I ask if you consider asking an Administrator to check the two I.P. addresses so interested in this page against the ones used by Manobe13 to be prudent? I'm not seeking drama but the article has the clear attention of one or more people. Do you see any issues with me asking for it to be protected / semi-protected? I'm asking as I have already been reverted, and would like to stay clear of 3RV. I shall make one more revert now as I await your reply, then leave it in the hands of others (preferably an Administrator who can help stop the conflict).

Thanks for your time, A F K When Needed 15:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into asking an admin about the IPs, and yes, I think it would be good to ask for (full) protection of the page. Thanks for helping me keep it from going down in quality. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for volunteering! I shall request protection within the hour, and no problem, I'll always happy to help :)

Regards, A F K When Needed 17:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, the page was fully protected for three days. A F K When Needed 22:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"you have worng"

We've got into a bit of an edit war about Talk:Book of Malachi. I've had a look at WP:TALK and it seems to be fairly finely balanced as to whether deletion is justified here. My reasons for retention are

• the paragraph is short, harmless, and in my view rather amusing
• it does draw attention to a serious issue, in that while the article has a substantial section on the Christian view, there is nothing at all on the Jewish analysis which must exist
• I've recently seen another, unrelated, case where one of the article's owners deleted a talk page comment simply because it attacked the whole approach taken by the article. I think the establishment of the right precedents is important. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I firmly think the tone and manner of writing in the post demonstrated it was meant petulantly, and not trying to improve the article. I think that justifies removing it. I won't press the issue, though. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew

I was just trying to clarify a sentence that seemed brutally awkward and slightly misleading, why did you revert the changes? I didn't mean to step on any toes. Jlrigamonti (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You didn't step on any toes, don't worry. I reverted you because in the sentence attributed to Burkett, you added phrases ("most likely", "theoretical") which aren't really supported by Burkett's work. Burkett asserts that the author did use those three sources, not that he most likely did. And he doesn't call Q "theoretical"; he says it could have been one document or a few, but asserts it as real, not possible.

The other edit at the beginning of the sentence was fine, and not really worthy of reversion of itself.

So this is all based on WP policies of verifiability: we try to stick to what our reliable sources tell us, and if something is attributed to a particular source, we can't say something the source doesn't say.

I do hope this explains the process to your satisfaction, and let me know if I can be of any help. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 13:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just a guilty by-stander here, but it might be helpful to have a phrase such as "According to Burkett" at the beginning of the section; a lay reader might indeed not be aware that Q is hypothetical, especially citing it along with Mark, which is not. The cite is not in quotation marks; so I don't what latitude an editor has in such cases. A Georgian (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, 'according to Burkett' is a good idea. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 14:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing both issues up! I didn't realize I was editing a cited statement. Jlrigamonti (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope this was a positive experience for you. It all takes getting used to. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

	Rollback enabled
	As discussed, I've switched the rollback feature on for your account. Now you can revert vandalism super-quick! The Cavalry (Message me) 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

38.121.23.173 etc.

Hi, FIY: 38.121.23.173 may well be the same as User talk:Lloydbaltazar. Mostly unsourced edits, on Immaculate Conception and Our Lady of Perpetual Help - even used to have his own images. Usually just needs a revert. A complaint somewhere may also be in order id he continues. I am fed up with him. History2007 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be the farm that they're the same user. I'll post stronger warnings if I encounter him again with unsourced edits. Thanks for the heads up. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

reply

I invite you to this discussion [2] Pass a Method talk 02:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed out on this, I was on holiday. If I can be of any help at this point, do let me know. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ramesses II

In the past you've been involved in discussions at Talk:Ramesses II about moving the page. A formal move request has been opened for the page here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been away, but should be more available now, so if it comes up again please do bring it to my attention. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Christmas

Merry Christmas

History2007 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I responded on the walk on water page. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sacred Tradition

Carl, I posted a question on the discussion page of the Sacred Tradition article regarding your deletion of the Literture section. Please respond on the discussion page of the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranp (talk • contribs) 22:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Certificate of Annuity

Once a PROD tag has been removed, even if no reason given, it may not be replaced - see WP:PROD#Objecting. You will have to take this to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Misleading edit summary in your undoing my contribution to Rachel's talk page

I do not see why asking if scholarly consensus supports the existence of Rachel as a person is forum. I think that the existence or not of the subject of an article is something that should be dealt with within the article. If this is something you disagree with, I would be grateful if you would contribute to the talk page, rather than remove threads from.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment gave no indication that you were not merely asking out of curiousity's sake, and wanted a yes or no answer on the talk page. Perhaps if you expressed yourself better, your comments would not be deleted. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: May 2012

ICHTHUS

May 2012

From the Editor

This month marks the observation of Pentecost, one of the most important feast of the Christian liturgical year. It is our hope here that all of you, regardless of your religious affiliation (if any), find that the holiday, and its accompanying activities, an enjoyable and beneficial experience. We also hope that this "Birthday of the Church" is one which gives you the same joy as the birthday of yourself or your loved ones.

Ichthus is the successor to the long running WikiProject Christianity newsletter, run under the WikiProject Christianity’s Outreach department. As such, you will continue to see information about our latest featured and good articles, DYKs, as well as new members who have joined our project. You might also see links to Christianity related news from the mainstream media!

With that, I wish you all happy reading!

John Carter, Asst. Editor

P.S. Please click here to add the new Christianity-related topics Noticeboard to your watchlist to follow the latest discussions relevant to WikiProject Christianity and subprojects.

Help Bring Wikipe-tan "into the fold"

As many of you may know, our unofficial mascot, dear Wikipe-tan, hasn't yet indicated any particular beliefs. However, yes, as we all know, ahem, some people might object to our beloved mascot running around in a French maid outfit. People do talk, you know. ;) If anyone might be able to develop an image of the dear lady in a image more, well, "Christian," I would like to see perhaps a vote for next month as to which, if any, image of the dear girl we might make our own unofficial mascot. Please post your images here.

By John Carter

Christianity in other wikis

As many of you might now, there are a large number of other Wikimedia Foundation projects, including WikiSource, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, WikiQuote, and others. I certainly believe that Wikibooks and Wikiquote might be among the more directly relevant sister projects. If any of you can think of any particular efforts in these other projects which you think would benefit from more input, please let us know here, so we can help spread the word around.

By John Carter

Spotlight on the Outreach department

Ichthus will spotlight a different subproject or workgroup of WikiProject Christianity. This edition will spotlight on our vital Outreach department. This comparatively small, but vital, project unit is dedicated to welcoming new editors to Wikipedia and the Christianity related content, and to providing information to the various project members, in forms like this newsletter.

The scope of articles with which this group deals is truly enormous, and, given the wide variety of material with which we deal, we would very much welcome the input of more individuals, particularly individuals who are particularly knowledgeable of the less well-known and less frequently monitored articles related to Christianity.

Speaking personally, I would be very, very gratified if we were to have this become a very, very large and active unit, with members from the broad spectrum of Christian beliefs, practices, and groups. The broader the spectrum and areas of expertise of members we have, the better we will be able to help manage the content. Please consider whether you believe you might be able to contribute in this vital area.

By John Carter

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
EdwardsBot (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That reminds me...

Hi, I saw one of your edits and realized I had not seen one for a while. We have had a few good editors formally retire, so I hope you will be staying around. We need you. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you. I've just been busy with school, so I should pick up a bit over the summer. Thanks for your encouragement, hope all is well. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. We had a few Wiki-thunderstorms (I think you saw one of them), but it is getting clear now, and things are gradually improving. Although several articles still need major work, many others (say Last Supper, etc.) have been cleaned up now and are stable. So things are progressing, but we need to be sure that content remains high quality. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Amen. It is very good to have someone who is to some degree familiar with the subject of Christianity around, and a seminarian certainly qualifies. I have recently unilaterally hugely expanded the number of articles in Category:Top-importance Christianity articles, based in large part upon those subjects being included in the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, because acting unilaterally without consulting anyone is kinda a habit of mine around here. ;) I know a lot of them aren't necessarily obviously important, but at least anyone interested in working on any such content, like perhaps yourself, will now have a bit more of an idea of which articles need some attention, and at least one good source for them. I know from previous experience (Ebionites comes to mind) that there are a lot of POV pushers regarding religion, but if you think I could be of assistance in any articles with which you deal, drop me a note and I'll at least see if there is anything I can do. John Carter (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both, and if there's anything in particular you want me to help with, do drop me a line. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the main things are to make suggestions about direction, and to be there when the next storm arrives... We are making good progress in that project, although I was really sorry that Carlaude retired at short notice. All his pages are not being watched now. Now, on the progress front, maybe you and John want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christian_history, given that membership is free for the rest of this month... And I remember that you know more about the crusades than myself, so your comments on the template there will be appreciated. And then maybe you can talk John into making that a sub-project... Sorry, John, I had to nudge you somehow... History2007 (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I sowwy. I skwewed up. I actually did update the Christianity banner a few days ago with the inclusion of all the new variations - I just forgot to tell anyone. The one question which really comes to mind about "Christian history" is the definition of the term. Pretty much every biography of a Christian could be included in its scope, and that could be problematic. I'm assuming that there probably is some sort of reference book on Christian history, or at least on early Christianity and the Reformation era (actually, I think I know about ones on those fields) but otherwise I think it might be a good idea to establish some sort of basic reference source so that we don't maybe overextend the scope of the subproject. Maybe articles specifically relating to history (like History of Christianity and such), articles covering specific periods of history, and the major related articles to those periods? John Carter (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right. It should be called History of Christianity. No question on that one. Please just fix it as such so we can do it before we are all history.... History2007 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, no objections to the name - there's a similar group on Islamic history by the same name. But I did update the banner already, like I said, on the 20th.

Oh, yeah, Carl, one thing that might be of interest to you. This page lists the various articles assessed as Top-importance to Christianity by their "scores", however they are determined, although I do think it somehow includes the number of internal links in the calculation. I have no idea why Joan of Arc comes in 2nd, but she does. Anyway, if you think you could add some links to articles to bring them to what might be a more sensible level, or if it might help you decide which articles you want to work on, that'd be great. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I am not sure if I follow what is happening now. Is that going to remain a project or a workgroup? And where is the banner? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow either. The Christianity banner at Template:WikiProject Christianity has been updated to include the Christian history project. Groups can be named whatever they want to, WikiProject, task force, work group, bete noire, whatever. (OK, I don't think I've actually seen that last one yet. ;) ) To my eyes, it would probably work best as a group within WikiProject Christianity, using the same banner. Does that answer? John Carter (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The answer is: select one and let us run with it. I prefer task force. How is that? After that we just need to finish the 2 templates. History2007 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, what the hell are you doing?

Why did you revert the Christianity page?