User talk:Carl.bunderson/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Carl.bunderson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Tamarindowiki

Hola Carl,

I am pretty much new to Wikipedia article editing and appreciate your help with the appropriate etiquette. I am resident in Tamarindo Costa Rica since 1995 and would like to update and improve the outdated existing article [1] I started putting an external link to the existing ones and gave it the link description >Tamarindo News, Yellow Pages, Events, Classifieds, Gallery and Forum; all about Tamarindo, Costa Rica< and linked it to [2] I thought this is appropriate as it fits the existing external links and explicit the link >Tamarindo Online newspaper< linked to [3] but I may be mistaken?

I would appreciate getting an explanation or help why you removed my edit due to “rv self promo”?

Other then that you may be interested taking a deeper look into [4]. You may find out that the intention of the site providing news “from the Tamarindo Community to the Tamarindo Community” provides free web presence to any publicly Costa Rica government accredited non profit organization related to Tamarindo which is cross financed through the commercial use of the site by Tamarindo businesses. I am on the board of directors of Asociación Pro Mejoras de Playa Tamarindo (APMT) which you can find here [5] and of course you can interpret my external link as a “self promo” in order to help the town and it’s community through up to date publication and information.

Furthermore I have started to uploaded into wikimedia more up to date images which I plan integrating into the existing article [6].You can see one of the images here [7], but I am planning on integrating images from between 2007 and 2008 as an image gallery into the article. Next step would be structuring the text with a table of content and updating the content that it fits the status quo of Tamarindo and the year 2008.

As said before, I would appreciate your help on “how to make it right”.

--Tamarindowiki (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the problem was just that from your user name it looked like you are associated with the site. The external link policy discourages users from putting EL from sites that they maintain or are otherwise associated with. That's the only problem, you have to be careful of not having a conflict-of-interest in your edits. I'll post a welcome template on your talk page that will have more policies on it, and anything else you need, let me know. My apologies for taking so long to reply. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Leo I

Actually that line about heresy was preserved from the previous edit, and I had a good think about it before leaving it. To say that someone is an uncompromising foe of what they see to be heresy is not saying that he was necessarily right that someone was a heretic - its just that he was uncompromising about it. Anyone, no matter what their bias toward religion should be able to agree on that.

HOWEVER, the bit YOU are editing out is a different issue. I edited out the bit saying the accused were actually guilty of cuplable negligence and said they were merely accused of this by Leo. Again, the neutrality of the edit is obvious. The fact is, they WERE accused of it - whether or not they were actually guilty is edited out.

I left in what he required them to do - again, fact, not stating whether they were guilty or even whether it was fair they should have been accused.

I'm putting this bit back in. If you want to change, change it to what you'd prefer, but don't revert it to what is clearly more biased and less readable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.132.71 (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

俳句

今ここに座ってるけど嬉しくぬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kairaiseiken (talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh jeez, I didn't sign. . .but then, who else would it have been? Haha! Kairaiseiken (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I found everything except the very first kanji of the heading. Is that in Kanji & Kana? Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

俳句-->はいく-->haiku Kairaiseiken (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Michael. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

X'nty

Hi Carl! As I always say, "You don't need to call me 'Father', you can just call me 'Daddy'" ;) Provinces of the Anglican Communion are autonomous, hence they formulate their own canon law. With regard to core elements of doctrine, Anglican doctrine (of which I am inordinately proud) offers a good summary of the subtleties of doctrinal development and authority in Anglicanism, which is essentially creedal and catholic. As for my orientation (presiding, that is) - the church I am currently at is ad populum, but I've been known to swing both ways. fishhead64 (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Elliott Bay Towers

~~Please do not create malicious redirects. They are disruptive and are considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.~~ ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If you'll look at the page history, you'll note that it was agreed to have it rdr to Frasier some time ago. In the past few days, a single anon has been reverting that change and maintaning Elliott Bay Towers as it's own page, against a prior consensus. The location is not under discussion; please check matters before assuming a user experienced as I am is in the wrong. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to play the "Experience" card here, but, you clearly noticed that the "anonymous" user is in violation of WP:3RR. We could avoid this had he been warned. Let's go ahead and nominate for protection against unregistered users if this is going on, no? ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 21:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

He has been warned, the problem is he's on a dynamic ip, so the past few days I have to put a warning on a brand new talk page each day. But yes, semi-pp would be great for this article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that protected. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm glad we could agree with each other. Happy editing! ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 07:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Please do not create malicious redirects. They are disruptive and are considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you." LOL - Carl, you shouldn't vandalize.

Hello, I am the "single anon". I do have a dynamic ip, how wonderfull!

92.1.66.95 (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. F.Y.I. when i change your userpage vandalism count and make it higher by 1 you shouldn't change it back because your userpage has been vandalised that 1 more time - by me.

For the expansion of Wiki

Hi, I presume that this is what you meant when you said I could get in touch with you here, as I don't see an e mail link. I have posted a continuation of the discussion at the American Express discussion page at the Internet forum discussion page as I think the whole question of forums is itself in need of clarification. Please join in. MaybeBoo (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change WP policy in this regard, you need to discuss on the talk page of WP:EL. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not particularily funny.

You don't fix a problem by adding to it. HalfShadow 03:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; I won't do it again. Unfortunately it's easy to get fed up. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

S'alright. Admittedly, most of my time here is spent 'cleaning up after the kids', so I won't say the thought doesn't strike me as well. HalfShadow 04:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for not being too upset about it, and for not slapping me with a generic tag. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You've been around for a couple of years; it's generally considered bad form to tag regulars. Besides, you didn't create the redir, you just modified it. HalfShadow 04:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mystery*File

Dear Carl

I'm new, far from a computer adapt, and I'm surprised I even found my way here. You recently removed several external links that I recently created, all to my Mystery*File blog. I don't know how to direct you to them.

I didn't mean to cross any boundaries. I gather that sending users to your own blog or website is not recommended. Mystery*File is a scholarly activity, however, with many well-known mystery authors and editors contributing. It is totally non-commercial, and there was no intention on my part to boost any blog or website rankings. Most of the incoming traffic, other than regulars, comes from Google, which is good enough for me.

My intentions were only good. I thought I might appeal once, but if you don't want outgoing links to material I thought might be useful and add to Wiki's coverage of a few books and movies, then I apologize and you won't hear from me again.

But hopefully you'll check out one of the deleted links and maybe make an exception.

I don't know what typing the tildes does, but here goes.

All the best

Steve Lewis

72.192.31.40 (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve, thanks for the courtesy. Yeah, the thing is, the EL policy discourages both linking to blog and to personal websites. But, as you alluded to, it can be overruled if they're good sites. On at least one or two of the wiki pages you had put them on, I suggest that you bring it up on the talk page, saying a lot of the things you put here, and see if there is any objection to adding them. If after a day or so there isn't I think you'd be free to add them. I'll look at them myself, but I'm already assuming they're likely pretty good. If nothing else, you're nice, work within the rules, have good grammar, and figured out the four tildes. Cheers, Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Carl

Thanks for the quick response. It's late here, so I didn't expect that.

What it sounds like you would like me to do is ask for comments on a page or two -- I don't know if I know how to to do that, but I did manage to find my way here -- but if even if I'm approved for those pages, how am I going to avoid setting up links on other pages only to have them removed by other moderators?

Is there a way to get a blanket exception, perhaps from yourself?

Please do take a look at my blog and let me know what you think. I think I will leave it in your hands. If you deem my blog and the links to them acceptable, I assume that you can undo the deletions?

But even if you do, how do assure the same thing does not happen in the future...?

Maybe create a generic statement to add to the talk page when I add a link?

I apologize for all of the questions. Let me know what you think. I'll check back tomorrow.

Best regards

Steve Lewis

72.192.31.40 (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about taking so long now, when I was so prompt before. Yes, you should go to the talk page of any one of the pages you edited (the link will be called 'discuss this page' and will be found at the top or the left of the main page) and start a discussion at the bottom of that page, asking people to comment on whether or not they think the link is meritorious for that page. There is always a chance that someone else will come along and remove your links later, but chances are they will look at the talk pages of the pages they might edit first; if they see there was consensus to have the links added, they will be unlikely to remove them. There isn't really a blanket exception, the easiest thing to do might be to put something on your talk page directing users to the discussion where they were (presumably) approved. And on that note, you should get an account; others will take you more seriously if you aren't an anon-ip. I did look at the blog, I think it's acceptable, at least. But I don't feel comfortable re-adding them without at least a chance for others to discuss. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carl

This approach is entirely acceptable to me. I will start by doing only one page at a time and continue only after gauging the reaction and discussion that follows. Thanks for your assistance.

All the best

Steve Lewis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.31.40 (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect to Talk:The Scarab Murder Case, I agreed with your original decision to delete the reference and have said so at greater length there; I think the policy on blogs is a good one and would be reluctant to go against it. I'm not sure what other links to this blog you deleted and/or restored. If you have any questions or comments, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Accounting. I'm not sure what to do now. I think the objections you raised on the talk page are valid. Honestly, I could go either way. The Els probly don't need to be there, but, well, Steve was courteous, and that goes a long way with me. I don't feel strongly for either side, so I'll support whatever way consensus seems to go on this one. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't have sense enough to check your user page first. Since you are 1) on a wikiproject dealing with this sort of articles and 2) an admin, I defer to your opinion. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. (1) might be a good reason -- I am certainly very familiar with the types of critical articles that are written about detective fiction, and with the principal critics, and the reviewer here doesn't leap to my mind. (2) is generous, but hell, you and I have both seen enough witless admins, definitely including me from time to time, that I wouldn't let that sway you. I think consensus is always the best thing to try for, and if everyone that comments is against me, then I'll join the majority. Let's wait a bit and see what happens. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, well in my experience, admins have only been witless when they don't take the time to look into the background of a situation, but yes, there was a reason behind the order in which I listed wikiproject member and admin ;) Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

St Augustine

Kudos on the cleanup of my entry on St Augustine and Abortion - brilliant! Sandwich Eater (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Aw, thank you, I appreciate it. I'm glad I wasn't stepping on your toes by expanding on it so much so quickly. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry about the mixup and thanks for the explained correction!

thank you carl, in regards to the iced tea edit, I hope when i submit my second entry into the wiki, I may proceed error free! (the second recipe I found was more inclusive in reference to ingredients, instructions, and visuals though...) Catc1h22 (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, sorry I didn't explain my reversion at first. I'll start a discussion on the talk page about which is better, it may well be that yours is. I'm just sensitive to people doing nothing but adding external links, that's why I reverted you so quickly. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh I just replaced the existing one with yours, it is a good deal better. Just be careful in adding ELs that it doesn't seem you're spamming. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I will be sure to keep that in mind, i only did so to improve the quality of references provided by WP. Your reaction and conclusion was most honorable and appreciated. Catc1h22 (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hubcaps

Carl, I respect your opinion that the link to hubcaps101 is spam. I have two questions for you. What, in your mind should be done to make this non-spam? Also, the other link on the hubcaps page is a secondary page of a site that sells things as well; how is this not spam or how does this differ. Your thoughts are appreciated.

Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.12.72 (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:Hubcaphaven is a commercial site, so all its constituent parts are commercial. It is spam, while the other link is purely showing people historical hubcaps. That is the informative, non-commercial type of link desired in the EL section of WP articles. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. Neither of the sites meet strict EL guidelines. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Beverages/Mixed Drinks El's

Hello carl, thank you for taking time to assist me with my wikipedia dilemma, I hope you can be just as insight and helpful as before.

I am a bartender in training, and through my exploration of WP in combination with http://drink-recipe.us/ - I have noticed that I can provide useful ELs and modifications to drinks without appropriate original recipe and variant instructions.

The problem I anticipate with my 'mass' contribution to WP at one time, is that it may be considered spam if perceived in a negative manner. I feel I can contribute greatly to WP, but with the expected constant traffic from my IP and ELs that will be contirbuted, I may "ruffle a few feathers" with the members. Is there any advice or suggestions and assistance you can offer?

Thank you ^_^ Catc1h22 (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you make a user page, saying at least a little about yourself, though maintaining anonymity is perfectly reasonable. Include in your user page that your intention isn't to promote drink-recipe.us. Taking the time to make a user page signals to others that you're invested in WP, and not merely trying to spam it. Btw, are you associated with the site in any way, or have you just found it in your bartender training to be better than most other drink sites?

Also, try and make substantive contributions to the articles (i.e., add information to the body article), rather than just adding ELs. That is another signal that you're not just spamming.

Also, unless the site you're adding is blatantly better than the existing one, either discuss adding it on the article's talk page first, or include in your edit summary a short explanation of why you're replacing one link with another. Again, if you're sure your link is better than an existing one, and they duplicate information (eg, both are just recipes), then replace the link, rather than adding to it.

So in general, just try and discuss things and give reasons for what you do, to make it as hard as possible for someone to think you aren't acting in good faith. Hope this helps :) Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the expedient reply. I will in fact create the user page(s) you mentioned. I have not commented/posted/blogged/promoted/or anything of the like, on or with drink-recipe.us. It has a relatively small index, but the convenience of recipe and video is not on any/most sites... As a result, I save memory with few windows and browser tabs :). I will be cautious and objective about which links and entries I modify. I do greatly appreciate your assistance and the information provided by WP in my bar training.Catc1h22 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great. I was just asking about your affiliation with the site to make sure it wasn't self-promotion. But everything sounds good, don't hesitate to contact me if you need more help. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re

No problem! Khoi khoi 08:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Southend-on-Sea

Hi Carl, can you please advise why you removed my edit on the Southend-on-Sea page? it related to the addition of details/links to Southend-on-Sea cricket club. It seemed just as valid, informative and useful as that relating to the Rugby and Athletic clubs. Thanks, Simon Wray.

Hi Simon. Adding external links to the body of an article is discouraged, excepting references, which need to be formatted properly. Adding links into the article as you did comes off as spamming or promotion of one's own causes/interests. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Roosevelt, New York

Carl,

This is the Roosevelt NAACP. We have been having meetings about you and Ira Goldstein vandalizing Roosevelt's wikipedia in order to make Freeport look better. You and Ira delete good statements about our town, but add fake statements to Freeport to make them seem better. An example is you altering the demographics on Freeport's page to make it seem like they have more White People to make the town look better, where in reality Freeport and Roosevelt have a very few amount of Caucasians in our community. We have been given many compliments from Nassau county about our peaceful students and you guys go and erase that off our site. Just because we are blacks doesn't make us monkeys. Please stop glorifying Freeport while making Roosevelt seem like a dump. Surprisingly, our schools are much safer and have more success then Freeport. Thanks again and please stop vandalizing, we [Roosevelt] are a community...black or white.

Thanks, Roosevelt NAACP

Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.80.129 at 15:25, on 11 September 2008

I have no idea from where you are coming. The diffs have nothing to do with the racial makeup of Roosevelt. I have been removing unsourced, OR, POV material from the article (ie "Roosevelt is known for its peaceful students accumulating in a lack of violence around the town.") That does not belong in the article and you stretching the limits of the the assumption of good faith. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Carl,

This is the Roosevelt NAACP. We have been having meetings about you and Ira Goldstein vandalizing Roosevelt's wikipedia in order to make Freeport look better. You and Ira delete good statements about our town, but add fake statements to Freeport to make them seem better. An example is you altering the demographics on Freeport's page to make it seem like they have more White People to make the town look better, where in reality Freeport and Roosevelt have a very few amount of Caucasians in our community. We have been given many compliments from Nassau county about our peaceful students and you guys go and erase that off our site. Just because we are blacks doesn't make us monkeys. Please stop glorifying Freeport while making Roosevelt seem like a dump. Surprisingly, our schools are much safer and have more success then Freeport. Thanks again and please stop vandalizing, we [Roosevelt] are a community...black or white.

Thanks, Roosevelt NAACP Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.80.129 at 17:07, on 11 September 2008

User talk:Auspx blanking

Auspx blanked User talk:Auspx several times, and each time you reverted it. As best I can tell, a user is free to blank their own talk page, even if it contains warnings. Wikipedia:Vandalism says "Editors are granted considerable latitude over editing their own userspace pages (including talk pages), and blanking one's own user talk page is specifically not prohibited. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve." WP:TALK notes "On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments...." Is there something I'm overlooking? (Embarrassingly, I've reverted a self-blank myself. Upon review, I'm pretty sure I screwed up.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alan, I think you are right that policy says users are allowed to blank their own talk pages. But I've noticed numerous users restoring deleted comments on others' pages. Honestly, I think it is a poor policy; it is so easy to archive a talk page, that blanking is really inexcusable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing other people do it is probably why I did it a while ago. I don't remember. Perhaps the policy should change, but it's what we have for the moment. It's not that big of a deal; if you need to show the old post you can link to the archived version. Happy editing! — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your post on my user page.

Hope you're well too, Carl. I won't put them back in. They referred to edits that I made in the article, then deleted, as the reference didn't really support what was written. So they referred to nothing that's still an issue.

Mandmelon (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Thanks for the explanation, Miss Mand. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Elliott Bay Towers

Please don't redirect the Elliott Bay Towers page. Currently a discussion is going on about if it should be merged, and the consensus so far is that it shouldn't be merged. Clearly I don't want it merged, and so I started the discussion so you wouldn't delete it. The article was deleted because it had no referances, many articles have no refs; delete them! If you don't want the article, express your opinion in the discussion.

You also removed what I wrote on the Frasier talk page. You have no right to do that - it was not vandalism, it was my opinion. I have the freedom to express my opinion on Wikipedia and you should not try to opress that. If you wish to respond, respond here...

92.4.8.60 (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It already has been merged. That's what it means when EBT redirects to Frasier. You started a discussion about something that has already happened. You are doing nothing more than being petulant. All your edits are vandalism and I will continue to revert them. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My edits on talk pages aren't vandalizm. I have brought back the deleted page - this is allowed on Wikipedia. If you want it deleted; AFD it.92.2.14.185 (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All your edits are vandalism. You fail to understand the nuances of WP. Elliott Bay Towers was not deleted. In the version I am maintaining, it is not deleted. Were it deleted, "Elliott Bay Towers would be red-linked, not blue-. You have proposed that it be merged into Frasier. What do you think it means that Elliott Bay Towers redirects to Frasier? You are a very petulant, childish editor and need to learn more about WP before you start screwing with the status quo. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic group articles

Hi. In light of the failure to reach consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British‎ I've suggested that there be a discussion of the various issues raised, here. Your input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Larry, I'll pop over there. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Boating Page edits

Carl; Are you an authority on the subject of performance boating? Please do not edit areas in which you do not have domain expertise - it is not proper or warranted. Please focus your efforts only on areas in which you are a domain expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseykextreme (talk • contribs) 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is both proper and warranted. You were spamming pages. Familiarize yourself with WP policy, and then re-visit the issue. In particular, note WP:COI, WP:NOT, and WP:EL. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Again, please stay out of areas for which you are not a domain expert or I will have to report your vandalism.

According to your perspective, all of the following pages/links would be removed as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boating_magazine - a page which lists many boating "Magazines"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_GEICO - an ad for Gieco Insurance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_magazine - a list of internal and external links to PC "Magazines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_photography - external links to photographers selling "Sports Photography"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_powerboat_racing - links to external websites and boating magazines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boating_Life - a boating magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_History_(magazine) - a boating magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakeland_Boating - another boating magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseykextreme (talk • contribs) 20:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Disputationes

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Disputationes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CultureDrone (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputationes

Hi. My objections (if that's the right word) isn't with the existence of an article on the book per se, but the unreferenced style - I mean, phrases like "This monumental work...", "Nor has it even yet been superseded as the classical book on its subject-matter..." and "His assertions are much more unbounded in the last part..." strike me as incredibly indicative of WP:OR /WP:POV - as they stand at the moment. Maybe they're direct quotes from someone else but, as an experienced editor yourself, I hope you agree that the article currently wavers on the edge of being acceptable. If you're going to improve it, that's fine, and I'll let youget on with it. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I took out the offending phrases you mentioned, and tried to clean it up in general. The lenthy descriptions of the work, which I didn't change much, seem to have come effectively verbatim from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. I'm not sure what to do with all of that. Did I address the tags enough for them to be taken down, or do you want them to stay? Thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Nice work on improving the article - however, none of the IngentaConnect references work (for me, anyway) - "Your authentication to this fulltext delivery has expired". So, they probably either need sourcing from somewhere else, or the references removed (a pity, but there are probably enough references there without them to pass WP:N / WP:V). Good job :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove the URL and change them to the print journal from which they came; hopefully then persons with access to the PDF can find it if they want it. Unfortunately, Igenta is like JSTOR, you almost have to be at a university to access it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd be interested in reading it, I can email you the PDF. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Beethoven and Schindler

Apparently there was once a Mr Schindler who edited Beethoven's "conversation books" (the books via which the increasingly deaf master cafrried on his conversations with the world): Herr Schindler, like so many amenuensi, decided the best service he could leave would be to delete anything unseemly from the record (Isabel Burton is the most famous example of the class). I feel a calling to add a sentence to the article to the effect that Schindler was an incorrigible drunk, giving rise to the saying, current to this day, "Schindler's pissed". Should I do it? PiCo (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the extra detail is tangential to Ludwig van Beethoven; it already discusses Schindler's emendations, which are the important part for Beethoven. I do think it would be a worthy addition to Anton Felix Schindler, though. Hope this helps. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Onewiseman90

Policy does not prohibit users from removing warnings from their talk page, and we should just leave it be. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Blanking your user talk page is bad faith and unnecessary; since users are able to archive their talk page if they don't want things displayed, it makes no sense to allow blanking, particularly by petulant vandals. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

For your info...

...in future, just so you're aware, if a user blanks a warning from his talk page, it should be taken as evidence that he reads and understands it. He's allowed to delete the warning, don't worry about admins not seeing it - we always check the log for warnings prior to blocking. I've blocked ASEOR2 (talk · contribs) for one week for general disruption and prattishness. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response to ZimZalaBim immediately above this thread. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just read it, and I'll re-state my point. Please don't restore warnings to a user's talk page if they remove them. I understand your point of view, but if you want policy to change, please go through the appropriate channels. There is nothing wrong with the user in question blanking his talk page, however there is something wrong with you re-adding the warning. Bear this in mind, please, and don't re-add warnings once they're removed. It doesn't help calm down the user, and makes it almost impossible for us administrators to discuss things with the vandal, and see if we can change their minds or explain the problems with their actions to them. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

How does it make it difficult for you admins to talk with them? Also, to test the waters, do you think there would be much support for a change in this policy? I honestly have been rationalizing my restorations under the "ignore all rules" rule; something which I tend to detest as a rule, but this particular policy is just assinine. It ignores the fact that talk pages are not merely used to talk to the user to whom it belongs; it is something of a public record, used by all users to gain more info about the user to whom it belongs. Yes, one can go through the page history, but with repeated blankings, that is prohibitively time-consuming. Archiving is the easy, simple solution, and it in no way infringes on the rights of the user. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally, they get more and more wound up removing the warnings, and then they email me with a long, descriptive e-mail, stating their problems, their exasperation, their phone number should I wish to call them, and all other information which may possibly be slightly relevant in any way whatsoever. I have plenty of examples if you fancy a chuckle! And yet, as an administrator, the rules say that I have to help, so I do, and each case takes upwards of an hour to solve, even if I'm flat out refusing them. The less wound up they are, the shorter and friendlier the e-mail they send, and the quicker I can get on to my evening drinks. It's hard to see from a user's angle, as you don't get the e-mails, I don't expect! As for changing it, to be honest, I'm not sure. One of my pet hates on Wikipedia is the politics; I steer clear of the Village Pump purely for that reason. I'd be slightly in support of it, or rather, in support of not removing any warnings less than 24 hours old. Having the warnings from the past 24 hours shown would be a huge help - I'd only see the warnings that were relevant. Put it forward in IRC, or at the pump, and feel free to quote me on the italicised sentence above! Regards, Richard Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't realize they bothered the admins so much with e-mails. For your collective sake I will stop (repeatedly) restoring warnings. I agree with you on the politics; I try to avoid policy discussions, but I'm quite tired of this one. Perhaps I'll post on the village pump, or write an essay. Thank you for providing me a supportive quote for when I do. Thank you, Richard. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

AFGHANISTAN

Something of interest that I can't post under Afghanistan...that I read in this 1857 book, maybe you can do something with it, so people can discuss it.

_______________________________ Book: "williams dictionary of all religions" p. 20-21 Printed Circa 1857

Afagans, a people in India, inhabiting a province of Cabul, or Cabulistan, who boast of bing descended from Saul, the first king of Israel.

Afgans are descendants of Israel carried off in the captivity of the ten tribes.

Inquiry into the language, literature, and history of the Afghans, we learn from Esdras, that the ten tribes, after wandering journey , came to a country called Arsareth, where we may suppose they settled. Now the best Persian historians affirm, that the Afghans are descended from the Jews; and they have among themselves traditions of the same import. It is even asserted that their families are distinguished by the names of Jewish tribes, though since their conversion to Islamism they have studiously concealed their origin.

The language they use has a manifest resemblance to the Chaldaic, and a considerable district under their dominions is called Hazareth, which might easily have been changed from Arsareth.

http://books.google.ca/books?dq=williams+dictionary+of+all+religions&printsec=frontcover

Asiatic Researches, vol. ii p.76 and Works of Sir William Jones vol. i. p.336 —Preceding unsigned comment added by John1857 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, John. If you haven't yet posted it on the Afghanistan talk page, I'll do so and see what we can do with it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Carl

Once again this is the NAACP of Roosevelt. We are taking action about you taking good facts about our towns out and adding false remarks about Freeport to make them look better. Just because our town is mostly black does not make us uncivilized people. Freeport is mostly a minority town aswell, but you take out the bad things that actually happen in the school and replace those with false glorifing details. You are contraditing yourself by saying we are giving a personal opinion, while all you do is give a personal opinion about the facts. You DONT and NEVER will live in Freeport or Roosevelt so stop messing with our page and find something better to do with your time. You have no idea what the actual town is like....face the facts. You have no say or opinion to what goes on in our page because you think the riots didnt happen while in reality check all the references you want. I bet if they happened in Roosevelt, you would keep that up all the time and even exaggerate the facts to make us look bad. Good Work Bunderson....Good work. Racism is so back in the 50's... 24.46.80.129 (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP policies, and quit wasting my time. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We have the policies Carl, memorized. You keep adding your personal opinion about the town. Once again, how come you take out events that actually happened in Freeport and add bad news to Roosevelt's page to make us look like idiots. I understand that altering demographics to add more white people makes Freeport look like a safer town, but that's racist and irrelevant. Don't write about towns that you have never been to, it makes you look like an idiot.

Again, read the policies. WP users are allowed, nay, encouraged, to edit topics on which they are by no means expert. I remove OR without prejudice, and so long as you add OR to articles, it will be removed, by me and by others. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

71.197.244.244

Ok now there is a lot of solid work on 666. I do not know how to add images. But the Greek alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet) is not a figment of my imagination, the math I put forth is true, do it your self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.244.244 (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't allow every single theory about the Number of the Beast to be added the the articles. They need to have been published in something that meets WP's reliable source requirements, even if you math is correct, which I don't doubt. Moreover, your addition, were it acceptable, would belong in Number of the Beast, not 666 (number). Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

EL is not a policy

EL is not a policy. Not that the link violates EL, but even if it did I would still include it, because it clearly enhances the article. -- Zsero (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a guideline, and there is no sense in violating what the guidelines suggest. It does not add anything to the article. If you really want to improve the article, add prose to the article about the varieties of ketchup, rather than another EL, particularly one commercial in nature. If it's really that important, write about it. Judging from your talk page, you have poor discretion when it comes to EL. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I have very good discretion about EL. You're the one who's paranoid that God forbid someone might make a buck of WP. There is no way to reasonably include the information at the link in the article. And that is the criterion for what should be linked, according to the very guideline to which you refer. Looking at that site is an eye-opening experience, that brings home to the reader just how varied the concept of "ketchup" can be, and that is precisely what external links are for. But the point of this note was because you claimed in your edit summary that it's against WP policy, and it isn't. -- Zsero (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs about guidelines vs. policy; the point is, under the ELNO guidelines 4 and 5, the link ought not be included. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are links "normally to be avoided". They are reasons to consider not linking a site, but it's perfectly OK, having given them due consideration, to decide to link them anyway. And BTW it doesn't violate 4; the link is not intended to promote the site, it's intended to enhance the article. -- Zsero (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I visited the site, gave it due consideration, and considered that there is no beneficial reason for including them which outweighs the reason that it normally ought to be avoided. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Will you please stop edit warring

You keep reverting me with no argument. You pointed me to the guideline. I reviewed it and made a solid argument for why this link should be included anyway. You have not even attempted to counter this argument, but instead keep pointing at the guideline and pretending that it is a binding policy (in fact you keep calling it a policy even though you know very well that that is an outright falsehood). I don't want to keep edit-warring, but I don't know what to do when faced with behaviour like yours. I cannot let you get away with deliberate edit-warring. If you want the link out, make an argument against it. And meanwhile stick to the truth. -- Zsero (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that some three other persons have involved themselves, all recognizing my argument, that the link is a violation of WP "policy", ie, guideline, ought to convince you that I am in the right. The link does not have a justification for inclusion, in light of ELNO #5. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ketchup. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ninety:one 20:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to chime in on the issue at the talk page, since he and I are at an impasse? Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

See article talk. ninety:one 21:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ketchup

I'm afraid I've had my fill of arguing with Czero today (possibly much longer). It appears to me that, at Ketchup, you're at about the point that most arguments with him end up, which is when nothing you can say counts as an argument to him. See wp:The Last Word.

Incidentally, he seems to be employing a classic strategy from How to win a revert war, namely making sure that he gets his addition in at the start of a 24 hour period so that you'll run out of reverts before he does. I'd say wp:just drop it for now, and consider trying to hunt up strong defenders of the "no commercial websites" policy before going at it again. Or just let it go entirely-- eventually someone will apply policy and clean it up; meanwhile your blood pressure will thank you. If Ketchup World was spamming a bunch of articles it would be another matter, but as it is, it doesn't seem worth the agro. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, Mwanner. A couple people stopped by Ketchup from his talk page, both taking my side (imagine that!), so I hope it has been resolved. And I know about the blood-pressure thing. I let myself get too worked up over things, but I really don't like giving in when I'm sure of myself. Thanks for the input :) Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite all the above, I couldn't help myself. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hard not to get sucked in, isn't it? Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Last Judgment (Judgement)

I've re-added the alternate spelling, with a reference from the Vatican as source. It's helpful in researching the topic, too, since the alternate spelling brings up more search options on Google. Thanks, EagleScout18 (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)