User talk:Carl.bunderson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

END OF PLANET EARTH

Don't touch it leave it alone 76.112.23.57 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

$pread (aka $pread Magazine) page

Hi Carl. Rather than continuously deleting each other's edits to the $pread Magazine page, I think it would be more constructive if we had a discussion about what exactly are our differences. Here is my rationale for the page as I have currently edited it. --I made some significant changes to my first general edit and what is there now is not perfect, but I think a long ways away from being promotional in any way. --Including some examples of what falls under the title of sex worker is within reason, however if this is a Wikipedia style problem then the word sex worker needs to become linked to the page of the same name. --The magazine cover falls under fair use and its caption is strictly informational. --$pread Magazine is erroneously categorized in your edits as a trade magazine. It is not a trade magazine, but a politics and culture magazine. --The inclusion of a mission statement is a valid addition to any site about an organization, however, perhaps to fit better with Wikipedia's general format it should be integrated into the introducing paragraph. What do you think? --I also added a short sentence about the general controversy surrounding the magazine. A reference to this can be found in Volume 1 Issue 3 where a self-identified feminist woman sent the magazine a letter accusing them of denigrating all women. If the problem is that this needs to be referenced then perhaps you can direct me to whatever section of Wikipedia that can tell me how to cite this properly. I hope to start having a productive dialogue with you about this soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoMonaLisa (talk • contribs) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to dialogue. I've edited the article to bring it to some point in between our views. First off, I got the impression that your edits were promotional because your edits on the encyclopedia have been only on, or pointing to, that article. Only editing one very specific topic is typical of the spammers I deal with a lot, so that's the only reason I had assumed that of you. Now, as for your concerns: I removed the examples of the sex workers because sex worker is wikilinked in the previous sentence. Including examples, when there is a wikilink right there, is rather pointless and wastes hard drive space and loading time, so thats why I did that. I removed the jpg again, but if you are sure it's fair-use please re-add it, and make sure that there is a justification of the image's use on its own page, or the bots will leave more warnings on your talk page (and that warning on there will have wikilinks related to all that stuff). I've maintained your categorization, less one non-existant [sic] one. The mission statement strikes me as spammy and promotional. A paraphrase or short quotation would be more appropriate. I looked at the pages of a handful of the organizations listed here, and none of the ones I saw had something the way you had it. I've maintained the criticism sentence, but you should reference it. You can do that by clicking on the carrot ref carrot thing below the editing box. Then in the middle of where it pops up on the screen just insert a citation in standard citation format (like you would for a school research paper). The computer will automatically put the reference down in the right section. Also, I removed the blog EL because the home page is already included in the ELs. There's no need to clutter up the ELs section with subpages. Also, I removed the long list of "links for sex workers", because WP is not a collection of ELs. I've deleted the section headings because there's really no point on a stub; once it is bigger they will be more appropriate. But sections are only used to be helpful in a navigating; its kind of like chapters. They're good for a novel, but people don't divide short stories into chapters, as it is unnecessary. I do assume you're affiliated with the magazine, so please just be mindful of WP's conflict of interest policy. Thanks for your civility, and I'll try and extend you the same. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The page is much better now I think. I added the magazine cover again because it qualifies as fair use since this is an article about the magazine. Wikipedia gives a specific example about this when you are about to add images where they say it's ok to use a magazine cover in an article about the magazine, but not a cover with Angelina Jolie on it for an article on her, etc. As far as the mission statement goes, I haven't looked at too many other analogous Wikipedia articles, so I haven't done anything relating to that. I will look into referencing the other stuff in the next few days. I have contributed to more than just the $pread page and as you can see they are all related topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoMonaLisa (talk • contribs) 08:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree its better. Thank you for discussing everything, and for contributing to more articles. I think we can take the clean up tag down, now. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On an aside, is it an issue for me to take down your initial promotional warning message from my talk page? Thanks. NoMonaLisa (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, by WP policy you're allowed to do that, but it bugs the crap out of me when people do it. I feel like when people blank their talk pages instead of archiving, they're trying to hide their past. So like I can't officially keep you from doing it, but how about if I strike through it? That way it stays on the page, but its obvious that its been retracted, in a way. And then once you're page gets long enough to warrant archiving it you can do that. I hope that's an agreeable compromise. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to perhaps clarify others reasons for deleting, my initial perspective was that since I am just beginning to become an active user + it is the only thing on my talk page and that you + I seem to have basically come to an agreeable place in regards to that particular message= that it's not particularly relevant. It's sort of like I just got here and as I am learning the ropes, I get a bad mark on my record that ultimately is cleared up theoretically, but not taken off my record. Down the line, I can see value in keeping them, but at this particular time it bugs *me* to see it as the only message. Oh, (sigh) I'm just sad that no one is talking to me on my talk page. If you still feel really strongly about it, I think I could deal with the strike out suggestion.NoMonaLisa (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, what if I/you archived that message, and I put a nice welcome template on your talk? Would that be better? I can see where you're coming from, I just hope you can see my perspective too. And sometimes its good when people don't comment on your talk page...when I get a new message I'm usually like "oh who did I piss off this time". ;) Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wellll, I don't know how to archive things yet. But I like the idea of a welcome template. Hurray! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoMonaLisa (talk • contribs) 04:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Random question for you: what does the number in parenthesis that is either green or red, plus or minus near people's names and edits mean/signify? Ex/ (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Carl.bunderson‎; 04:22 . . (+304) . . Carl.bunderson (Talk | contribs) Hope you are well.... thanks!--NoMonaLisa (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It shows how big the contribution was; it gives the net change on the page of that contribution in some unit, I think it's bytes, but I'm not sure. So on the example you gave me, my edit added 304 bytes (or something) to the page; a minus before the number just indicates a net loss of text. I think it's generally used so you can roughly tell whether it was a major or minor edit. I am well, hope you are too. Thanks for the question. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Carl, Just wanted to say thanks for combating the recent wave of vandalism on the various sex work related pages!NoMonaLisa (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, have a good day :) Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Another random question for you, how do I get the contents box like you have on your page on mine? That thing is so helpful.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not sure how you can get it to do that manually. As far as I know it just comes up automatically when you have x number of headings on your talk page, that the computer deems it necessary to have a table of contents. Sorry I'm not more help. Admins might have a better idea how to do it manually. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Response.

Hi Carl. I don't usually question people who are willing to contribute. However, your recent edit and "supporting" text was simply incorrect. You edited out a link for a foods heritage site from the food heritage wiki. How your supporting text makes the case for this edit escapes me. Clearly it is topic-relevant. Did you even look at the linked site? If you wish to do something to help, why not help flesh out the stub? In looking at the comments below, it would seem this is not isolated. Please know that we're all here in an attempt to make wikipedia better. Before making edits like this, please step back and determine whether it is warranted. Again, I appreciate your willingness to participate. But please don't automatically assume links are to commercial sites. That site sells nothing and the owner of the site is not one of the sources on the sources page. Your request to have discussion rather than re-addng the link is odd. You did not do this before removing it. Why do you seek to hold me to a different standard? BTW, this is the first time I have used the talk page. I hope I did it correctly (as an edit) as I did not see another method to add the repsonse. Bluegrasshockey (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The link to persimmonpudding.com is not an apt link for Food heritage. For articles such as those actually about persimmons, its ok. But food heritage? No, that is much too general a topic for you to include your link on. I have looked at the linked site. And thank you for your advice, but I have enough to do reverting vandalism, without fleshing out stubs. I know the site isn't commercial, but I use spam as a catch-all term for crufty ELs. Adding the same link to several different articles is characteristic of spammers. People interested in improving the encyclopedia spend their time working on the articles, not adding to the often already-bloated lists of ELs. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Response.

Carl. I'm writing this as a last-ditch courtesy. You objection to the applicability of the site in the EL simply because it is specific? In fact, the stub (a generalized mention of a large topic) mentions specific examples. If you knew anything about food heritage as a field of study, you'd see these same specifics...you can't engage in it without them. The mention of food museums is telling as well...several of these same museums are specific to a single food item. The heritage part comes from the historic and cultural nature of the information. If the site were simply a "hey...persimmons are great" fluffy site, I'd be in agreement with you. Your last sentence is ironic. I'd change it slightly to say "People interested in improving the encyclopedia spend their time working on the articles, not continuously looking for demons and getting into revision wars." Am I to guess that all of the other issues herein are from idiots? ...or are some reactions to someone with narrow views who troll for easy controversy rather than create improvements? The addition of the link is not vandalism. I am starting to believe what you're doing is. I hope I'm wrong. Already bloated lists of ELs? THREE??? Please. You also redefine spam...I won't argue about it...but the usage is improper. Adding a pertinent link to topics in which it has a direct correlation is entirely valid.

No, it is not relevant to the page. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you've put the link on several different pages, and have done little in the way of actually adding info to the encyclopedia does not suggest to me that you are doing anything but trying to promote this particular website. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It must be nice to be clairvoyant. I made edits which corrected misinformation on other pages. On the food heritage page, I have not had time to write a more in-depth entry. I am new to wikipedia and learning as I go. However, I'm trying to promote persimmons and food heritage NOT simply a site. I'll not dignify the arguments you ascribe to my motives. Surely you're trolling. You keep saying the link is on several different pages. I wonder why? They are directly related to those topics. I'm not adding unrelated links or overly general links to specific entries. Really...I just can't believe this is more than a troll.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

You're really quite ridiculous. If I seem offensive to you, it's because I deal with vandals all the time on here. But the type of edits you have made are typical of vandals, and that is why I am treating you as such. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing personal attack? You may "deal with vandals all the time on here" but it would seem a heavier hand. Were I a vandal, I'd not have bnothered explaining myself. but then, you already knew that. What a pity you choose not to better your time here. I'm sorry you refuse to see the pertinence and validity. This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

There is no need to have the linke on this page. It is not directly relevant to the article topic. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, on pages such as Persimmon and American persimmon I see nothing wrong with it. But your adding it to a page to which is its marginally related indicates that you are merely trying to promote the site, rather than point users to more information on "food heritage". Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

input/edit

Carl - How are you sir. Thanks for introducing me to the site. I had added the input on a recent book I read about Raymond Rife. I noticed you took it off. What would I need to do to put something on where I feel it's needed? What are the guidlines? Also, how can I help monitor from people/kids putting things that don't belong? Thanks for your time! John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwalker316 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm well, how are you, John? I had taken off the Skull and Bones page because you had added it in a section on members, so it looked like you were just trying to push the book. If you add info like that in the right section (such as in pop culture, or something of that nature (though I can't remember if the book was fiction or not) it would be more likely to stay). Also, adding wikilinks (the links to other wikipedia pages in the format of double brackets around the page name, like this makes edits look less like spam than if you include external links. When you do add ELs, please do them in a reference format, which you can see in the "Wiki markup" section below where you edit the pages. Also, I'll put a welcome template on your page which will have more info and links on how to be a great wikipedian. Also, if you see an edit that is obvious vandalism, you can go the page history, and revert it to the last version by a different user by clicking on that version, and saving it as is. If you want to monitor changes to pages, just make sure that they go on your watchlist when you edit them. Then it will show you when edits are made to the pages and you can keep track of what's going on on them. Thanks, John! Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Carl. I noticed your working on your masters in "religion." I myself am Christian (Catholic) and have been doing a lot of self study on the sacraments and beliefs of the Catholic Church. I have a book called "We Believe..." by Oscar Lukefahr I have found to be good. If you know of any other "good ones" on Catholism please let me know! Thanks again.

PS - a friend wrote the book. I will ensure it is not "pushed" on the great site. It is a good/educational book and worth noting in the further reading page. Again, i will help clean up sites as i get better at this. It's good to be apart of. Johnwalker316 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm back! Last questions...I promise. Are the religion pages, such as Roman Catholic Church maintained by someone? Noticed there wasn't an edit place.. Also, not worry, I am going to figure out how to leave a signature after a msg! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwalker316 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well what specific topics would you like book suggestions on? For sacraments and beliefs of the Catholic Church, the one that popped into my head was "The Teachings of the Church Fathers" by John R. Willis; it collects passages from the early Fathers, arranged like the CCC and shows that what the Catholic Church believes is the same as the earliest Christians. But if you want more, please give me more detailed topics and I'll let you know.

I'm glad you're into improving stuff on here.

Um probly what happened is that the Roman Catholic Church page is/was protected. A lot of times, high-profile pages are fixed so that either no one can edit them, or only experienced users can. This happens when the pages are getting vandalized a lot. There should have been a template at the top of the page saying it was protected. It will run out eventually. That's the only thing I can think of that would make there not be an edit place. And to leave a signature, just type 4 tildes at the end of your comment, with no spaces inbetween them. Eventually you'll get so used to it that you'll have to catch yourself from doing it in emails. lol. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan

I saw your edit in "Afghanistan". I have no problems with using "Afghan" as the main demonym, since it's by far the most common.

However, you version contains a spelling-mistake (the correct spelling is demonym and not denonym), and I think that there should be at least a hint that alternative demonyms (i.e. Afghani & Afghanistani) exist. Saying that "Afghan" is the most common designation does not violate your consensus. But it gives the reader a hint that there are also 2 other words that can be used or are used in some works as an alternative.

There are important politicians within Afghanistan who openly support the designation Afghanistani and call for a name-change of the country. See the picture:

An article in the Iranian newspaper Nimrooz (2000): Dr. Latif Pedram proposes changing the name of Afghanistan to Khorasan or Aryana, the historical names of the region prior to Pashtun domination.

The information has been accepted in the Demography of Afghanistan article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.134.163 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

I'll correct the spelling if this hasn't already been done. And if you go into the most recent archive of the talk page, you'll see that we came up with the footnote of Afghani and Afghanistani as a way to give "at least a hint that alternative demonyms exist." There were some who wanted nothing but Afghan, and others (such as me) wanted to have it just list all three in the infobox, so the way it is now was a compromise for consensus' sake. May I ask why you feel a footnote isn't enough indication of alternative demonyms, especially in light of the archived discussion about it? Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A footnote in Wikipedia is usually used for a reference. That's why it is summed up as "references" or "reflist". -Al-Fanā (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, read the conversation. We already discussed that issue. And as I pointed out in the discussion we've already had that there is precedence on this and other pages for this manner of footnote. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three reverts rule on food heritage. Please do not construe this decision as taking sides; the other user engaged in the edit war has been blocked as well. When the block expires, please pursue discussion instead of reverting, rather than in addition to it. And remember: there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Kafziel ^{Take a number} 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wat

What the hell are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Bates (talk • contribs) 09:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit you made a few minutes ago to Pulp Fiction (film). It does not improve the article, and since you have been warned about vandalism before, I trust that you realize that what you were doing was not constructive. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent vandalism warning not applicable

Never used Talk before, please forgive me if this isn't posted correctly.

I received a "new message" from you about vandalism. This is a Bell Canada dynamic IP, thus, 99.999 percent of people who use it have not vandalized you, nor have I.

Cheers --Kkishkon (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're writing as a registered user, whom I don't seem to have warned. Why are you talking about warning an IP? Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I got the orange box saying I had a "new message"...following the link revealed a message from you, to the IP address I am currently using. I know it was not directed to me, but figured I should inform you it is a dynamic IP. --Kkishkon (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Anoshirawan

can we confirm whether or not this is User:NisarKand/User:Khampalak? Kingturtle (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to go about that exactly. I would just look into whatever the sockpuppetry pages say on how to do it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Recipe

Carl, can you please refrain from undoing my revision to the recipe article. I am simply adding to the external links, that is all... Thank you. - Gtg228r —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtg228r (talk • contribs) 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It was identified as a spam link on the Atlanta article by another editor, so I am treating it as spam. And by doing little more than add a single external link to different articles, one could infer that you are trying to promote the site, rather than improve the encyclopedia. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The link I am adding is under recipes and is completely relevant to the topic of recipes. It provides an external link to vegetarian recipes, the other links do not. I realize now not to add it to the Atlanta article, but it definitely belongs in recipe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtg228r (talk • contribs) 04:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good enough reason; I looked over the page and it does seem fine. I would suggest saying all that on the article's talk page though, just so everyone can easily see your justification. And if you would remove the exclamation point when it's added back, that would be great, so it doesn't look so strongly like (self-)promotion. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the message, that's really sweet. And cool that you made the image yourself. Happy Valentine's day, yourself. Thanks again! Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Cooking

I just wanted to tell you thet I have added an image of Iraqi soldiers cooking in the article Cooking. The image may not be typical representative of cooking, because it depicts cooking by soldiers during war, but I thing the image is of good quality and showing cooking (no matter by whom), other images of cooking should also need to be included. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks good. Thanks for letting me know about it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Pope Clement I

Would you have a look at the new additions to the Pope Clement I article under the identity and writings sections. I think I can handle the obvious problems in the introduction, but you seem to have more expertise than I in the subject matter. Thank you. Dgf32 (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a little bit with it, but see my comments on the talk page. We'll try and come up with a reasonable compromise. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Guys. I put real work into the lead, and you're messing with that work. That's OK if you're also putting real work into the page. Or are you just suppressing information that's counter to your POV? I request that you stop messing with my referenced text, on Clement, on Irenaeus, everywhere. Thank you. Leadwind (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Stop messing with my work"? No one owns WP, and as long as we are "messing with your work" in good faith, we are free to do so. I did not think your addition to the lead reflected what was written in your source, and you have made no concerted effort thusfar to demonstrate to me how it was. And just because it is referenced doesn't mean it is notable in a particular place in the encyclopedia. You're going to have to learn to deal with people messing with your work on here, or leave. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed your questions one Clement talk. If you want to be taken seriously as a legitimate editor, please contribute materially to the pages in question instead of merely obstructing other editors' work. Leadwind (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you please quit insulting me, wind? I am taken seriously as a legitimate editor and thank you for not insinuating otherwise. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I will stop insulting you. My apologies. For all I know, lots of editors respect you as a worthy contributor to WP. I will admit that I had you pegged unfairly as an impediment. In my past experience, when a pro-RCC editor shows up and deletes my referenced work, it's because they're not interested in building WP up. They're only interested in suppressing information they don't like. But I haven't interacted long enough with you to say that you're the same way. Again, I apologize. Leadwind (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology; its not often that I actually get one. And I'm sorry if I've come off that way...I can see where you're coming from. And the reason I don't make big contributions is because I tend to be more a wikignome. If you want to see some of the "actual" contributions I've added, check out the articles on the books of wisdom lit. I wrote the messianic sections in them, and I'm rather proud of them. Anyway, I do believe that you're interested in helping WP too, and if I haven't seemed like it, I'm sorry. I like have you've done on the Gospel of John page, I know. Thanks again, and I'll try and be better towards you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's hope for the best. Leadwind (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Toilet Paper

I thought my information about printed toilet paper is valuable, relevant, and unique. There is no other information about printed toilet paper and it is becoming more popular. There are other toilet paper sites that have links to info about toilet paper. What exactly is wrong with the page I am linking to? beavboyz (talk)

The website to which you are linking falls afoul of these policies on [External] "Links normally to be avoided" on WP:EL: #4 Links mainly intended to promote a website. and #5 Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

Also, it is conflict of interest. Because your username, beavboyz, is strikingly similar to the website operator's email, [email protected], it's pretty obvious you are trying to direct people to your own site. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't undo the farts

Carl, Thanks for your defense of wiki, but I think you were too trigger-happy in undoing the Fart_lighting edits. Within the overall juvenile context of the subject, I believe my additions about safety in fart lighting are valid and useful. I will revert your undo. If you feel strongly about the changes, please begin a talk. Thanks.

Please read the policy pages on original research. Find citations for what you have added, and then it won't be reverted. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Carl, it seems juvenile to request scholarly publications about whether boys should wear pants when lighting their farts. This kind of sanctimonious obsession with control is hardly advancing wiki knowledge. Nevertheless, I will rewrite the sections I added based on basic physics and extra wiki links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 08:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It is necessary to request references to keep articles on marginal subject, such as this one, from becoming full of childish BS, as they are prone to do. Control and adherence to wiki standards are all standing between a half decent encyclopedia and a load of non-notable trivia and childish idiotic content. Carl.bunderson (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

\archive 2

Re-name this to User talk:Carl.bunderson\archive 2, for it is not \archive 2. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 05:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having trouble with the archiving thing. Would you mind deleting \archive 2 for me? Thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 05:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, anytime. Have you been adopted? WP:AAU- That's Adopt-a-user. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 05:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't. I'm on here quite a bit though. I tend to be pretty wiki-gnomish, so I'm not sure I get a lot of attention. As you can see from my talk, my problem tends to be what comes off as edit-warring when I feel that I'm clearly in the right and others are clearly in the wrong. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You should get an adopter. Here is a list of people willing to adopt: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. I've been, and am, adopted. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 06:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally suggest -Midorihana- or Master of Puppets. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 06:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What would they do for me, really? I feel like I'm not exactly a new/inexperienced user. I have the grognard extraordinary/experienced and established service award, and other than archiving my talk page so rarely that I'm bad at it, I feel like I'm rather knowledgeable about how WP works. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you deleting the archive? Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 06:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct template is: {{db-author}}. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 06:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I managed to put it in three wrong places before getting it right. Thanks for the correction. They'll still get speedy deleted though, won't they? Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes some time, but it will be deleted, eventually. I'm going to retire for the night (it's 1 in the morning here). If you've got anymore questions, feel free to ask them here (I've got this page on my watchlist), or my talk page (User talk:Basketball110). Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 06:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Done... here's your notice

A tag has been placed on \archive 2, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

The author requests it deletion, yet doesn't know how, therefore making another request for deletion to another user

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 05:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

good trim

Good trim on Polycarp's lead. I'm thinking of adding descriptions of who these "Johns" are. Leadwind (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Lead. If you want to, I won't revert you, but I guess I don't see why its necessary. The wikilinks are right there for the reader to find out more about who the people are. I have a tendency to be like that; when there's a wikilink I remove info which seems to me to be redundant. Why do you feel its necessary to give info on who each is, when the reader can simply click to find out? Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Links with no explanation are what lists are for. Articles should give you the information themselves and not make you click through. I think that what WP guidelines say. The text should have the information that the reader needs to understand it. If anything, this section should say more, not less. Polycarp lived in Smyrna, and the tradition of the Apostle John was very big in Asia Minor. This information connects Polycarp to the history rather than merely relating the bare fact that he's said to have known John. Leadwind (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel like my removing info on the Johns was the same as removing the explanation of what "apostolic fathers" means, though you [seem to] have no problem with that. How are they different? I think it would be better to have a section in the body that goes into detail on why people think it would have been a particular John, assuming that there are sources for that. And I don't see the difference between "connecting him to the history" and relating the bare fact; the Johns listed as I have done are persons/a person ( ;) ) who lived and had a big impact on history. How is showing which Johns could have been referred to not connecting Polycarp to the history? Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

hello

You were awarded you first barnstar on my 40th birthday. (Useless trivia for the day.) Derekbd (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

lol, well then I'll share it with you as a mightily-belated birthday present. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, though I hardly deserve it. I am slowly learning to contribute to wikipedia. Have a great day.Derekbd (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you're welcome. You do the same, and if you ever have questions, feel free to hit up this page. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I shall. Ha, check out my talk page. Someone tried to give me a telling off about deleting something that I didn't. The user is clueless. At least I admit that I am new! Derekbd (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He put the same thing on my page, and top posted it, so he was just spamming us and likely Jack as well. Aw well. I'm glad you're a good-faither. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

#6 Other unknown claims

[(Concerning Rosewell incidents articals)] Carl Before taking it upon yourself to delete something like the above mentioned artical, give some of us with about 30yrs experiance a chance to verify some of the claims, and information given in an artical. I am hoping the person who posted this re-posts it! If you don't like how it was written, or that it was a pooly written artical thats your business, but don't choose for the rest of us who read the content and not the grammer.

Agentleman

Poor grammar is indicative of poor content. Those who take the time to include verifiable, sourced content, do not write like fifth graders. Find sources and learn to properly write English. Until then, please use the Simple English WP. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ricco Johnny: Give Agentleman a break! Pompas a@#! He did'nt post the article. In addition, it is clear that you, and several others have been here at Wiki way to long. Your arrogant, self righteous attitudes are frankly an over compensation for some other personal issues. You and several others thrive on conflict with the sarcasm of 13 year old juvenile delinquents. Give us all a break guys! Get a life, an get off the Wiki. We know you have contributed a massive amount of time and effort, but it’s time to move on! “Poor social skills are indicative of a lack in proper adult personality development.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.194.25 (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.194.25 (talk)

Crowlands Heath Golf Club

Hi Carl,

Could you please let me know why you continuously remove an external link from the Crowlands Heath Golf Club page ? I own the golf club, and therefore feel I am entitled to add an external link to assist people with further details about the golf course.

I would appreciate a response from you.

Regards Chris Jenkins

I'll stop removing it. It had originally been added by an anon, possibly you, spamming pages with a link to Essex wedding services. The Crowlands golf club page should only be added on its own WP page though, nowhere else. On other pages it is still spam and promotional. Please remember that you are not allowed to promote your businesses here, and that doing so is a conflict of interest violation. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

minor correction

Hello. On your latest edit to Afghanistan you accidentally reverted user: Anoshirawan's edit also. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to do that. If you could please fix that that would be great. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalalabadi (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not an accident, and I meant to. Why do you think that I will defer to your judgement, when Kingturtle, an established editor whom I trust, thinks you, a new user, may be a sockpuppet? Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong person

Mate I don't know what your warning is about, I don't edit articles; please get your facts right before threatening me.

From wikipedia scanner: "Found 0 edits within 219.89.168.7

No edits found. Try again."

My facts were, and are, right. Look at your contributions. There was an edit from your ip at 23:10, 7 August 2007, for which I warned you, about 7 hours after the vandalism took place. Since many ips are dynamic, it may not have been you, but please take it in stride and if you want to avoid irrelevant warnings, please get an account. I was not threatening you, simply notifying persons on your ip of vandalism from that location. Please grow up and quit acting as though all you anons know more about WP than established editors. If we warn you, it is with good reason. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

well done!

As you may have noticed, I have been out of the loop for a couple of weeks. Just discovered your Ben Sira page, and wantted to thank you.

Keep up the good work.Dampinograaf (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation, and I'm glad you're fine with what I did. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8